Abstract
We have finally reached the top of the pyramid. Here, at Stage III, we will have full interaction between verifications and falsifications in both the ingredient sense and the assertoric content. I call a strategy that allows us to combine the two notions at the assertoric level a hybrid strategy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
I’ll speak of \(N_{3}\) and \(N_{3f}\), not meaning to imply that \(N_\mathrm{AND}\) and \(N_{\mathrm{AND}f}\) are off the table. It is just that conditionals will not be an issue of importance in this chapter.
- 2.
A perfect number is a number that is equal to the sum of its proper divisors, such as 6.
- 3.
Cf. Sect. 5.4.
- 4.
The assertoric sense is what decides the adequate use of the statement on its own, not as a constituent of a larger statement.
- 5.
Cf. Sect. 6.2.
- 6.
This assumes, for simplicity, that the only options we are allowing for in a single area of discourse are verificationism and falsificationism, disregarding the options yet to come in this chapter.
- 7.
Of course, we might also find that assertions that are neither correct nor incorrect have some systematic effect. However, the minimal requirement for the necessity of verifications and falsifications in the assertoric content is to have two: One for correct and one for incorrect assertions.
- 8.
Of course adjusting for indexicality.
- 9.
As we are building on logics that have toggle negations, we also have this plausible outcome: If the asserted statement was a negated one, \(-A\), the speaker has not only to endorse its negation \(--\) A but also the unnegated statement \(A\) if his assertion is falsified.
- 10.
At this point, we may again ask whether it really is the right notion of “verifiable” we are working with. We are, ever since Sect. 3.8.4, assuming that a statement is verifiable iff it is decidable (that is, we have a decision method for it) and, were we to carry out this method, we would find the statement verified.
If a statement is verifiable in this sense, and we have not yet carried out the decision method, should we want to say that the speaker can make the audience accept his statement? I think this is correct, for the way to do it simply is to carry out the decision method and displaying the result. The audience’s endorsement is not a direct consequence of his making a correct statement, but he can effect it if he wants to.
- 11.
If what I have said earlier about taste statements and about expanded falsificationistic meaning theories is right, then “Bile is not tasty” would be such a verified statement.
- 12.
E.g., in Sect. 6.6.
- 13.
In many states of the USA, this shift of the BoP was legislated after a famous case in 1982. John Hinckley, a young man who was desperate to make a favorable impression on actress Jody Foster, tried to do so by shooting president Reagan and members of his security staff. His plea of not guilty on grounds of insanity was successful, not because he could prove his insanity, but because the prosecution could not prove his sanity. After this unpopular outcome, many states changed their laws so that a man in similar circumstances would be convicted.
- 14.
Currently, there is a controversy about the British libel laws that focuses exactly on the issue of the distribution of the burden of proof. The case that put this law into the limelight is between well-known science author S. Singh and the British Chiropractic Association. When Singh questioned in an article the legitimacy of the claims made by members of the association that chiropracticians could heal all sorts of heavy illnesses that had ostensively nothing to do with the parts of the body they treated, they sued him for libel.
Publicity-wise, this must have been the worst decision the BCA ever made, but in purely legal terms, they did have a point. The British libel law, unlike libel laws in other countries, could well be interpreted to say that the BoP was on Singh. This meant that he either had to retract what he said in an newspaper article about the issue, or to prove that chiropractics could not heal those illnesses.
In fact, this was the verdict in the first trial on the matter. Singh did not back down, took the case to a court of appeals and won in the end. The case attracted so much attention that it might well lead to a revision of the controversial law.
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/15/simon-singh-libel-case-dropped, last retrieved on May 21st 2013. Also on May 21st 2013, Singh’s homepage http://www.simonsingh.net/ collects many links to news coverage, while the BCA’s homepage understandably makes no mention of the case.
- 15.
Lewis (1979).
- 16.
Certain political commentators come to mind.
- 17.
And if we feel that we just have to keep truth and correctness (and falsity and incorrectness) correlated, then we should move back to the CV&IF strategy.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kapsner, A. (2014). Stage Three: Hybrid Strategies. In: Logics and Falsifications. Trends in Logic, vol 40. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05206-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05206-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-05205-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05206-9
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)