What is your answer?
For a statement to be empirically verifiable,
{ 1 } - actual observations must show it to be true.
{ 2 } - current technology must allow us to test whether the statement is true.
{ 3 } - some possible observations must be able to prove it conclusively.
{ 4 } - some possible observations must be able to make it highly probable.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
For a statement to be empirically verifiable,
{ 1 } - actual observations must show it to be true.
{ 2 } - current technology must allow us to test whether the statement is true.
{ 3 } - some possible observations must be able to prove it conclusively.
{ 4 } - some possible observations must be able to make it highly probable.
This defines "verified" -- not "verifiable." Something could be true, and hence not yet found out to be true; this makes new scientific discoveries possible.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
For a statement to be empirically verifiable,
{ 1 } - actual observations must show it to be true.
{ 2 } - current technology must allow us to test whether the statement is true.
{ 3 } - some possible observations must be able to prove it conclusively.
{ 4 } - some possible observations must be able to make it highly probable.
Ayer gave "There are mountains on the other side of the moon" as an example. When he wrote, people couldn't actually test this statement. But still the statement was empirically testable (in principle), since we could describe possible observations that would make the statement probable. This is enough to make the claim meaningful.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
For a statement to be empirically verifiable,
{ 1 } - actual observations must show it to be true.
{ 2 } - current technology must allow us to test whether the statement is true.
{ 3 } - some possible observations must be able to prove it conclusively.
{ 4 } - some possible observations must be able to make it highly probable.
On this criterion, no universal statement is empirically verifiable.
Take, for example, "All swans are white." No set of observations could prove this conclusively -- since we can never exclude the possible later appearance of a black swan. But some set of observations could make the statement probable.
<= back | menu | forward =>
4 is correct!
For a statement to be empirically verifiable,
{ 1 } - actual observations must show it to be true.
{ 2 } - current technology must allow us to test whether the statement is true.
{ 3 } - some possible observations must be able to prove it conclusively.
{ 4 } - some possible observations must be able to make it highly probable.
Ayer gave "There are mountains on the other side of the moon" as an example. When he wrote, people couldn't actually test this statement. But still the statement was empirically testable (in principle), since we could describe possible observations that would make the statement probable. This is enough to make the claim meaningful.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
the end