Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Sat, April 11, 2015 6:19 pm, Rohan McLeod wrote:
But I can't imagine what would be intended by "falsifying' a value statement
Is that an objective value, a subjective value, or an intersubjective value?
Well I would see all values as subjective; though we may share them; the values may concern objective (aka material) phenomena eg.aesthetics of design, ethics of social behaviors or they may concern subjective phenomena eg. pain (which the Bhuddists claim is just a very strong opinion !)
In other words, when you realise by what criteria you verify each of these statements, then you will also discover by what means one would falsify statements making these value claims.
I don't see a problem with "verifiable statement " used loosely to contrast with a statement, whose credibility say is based on the authority of it's source; (I use the word 'scholastic' for such.....somewhat ideosyncratically !) But the problem with verification is it is not the compliment of falsification. One fact can falsify a theory (make it false regardless of any further facts); but how could one fact make a theory true regardless of any further facts ? For me a statement of fact ; objective, subjective, hypothetical (eg mathematical), perhaps metaphysical (as a correlation between subjective and objective); explicitly (but more often implicitely) asserts a number (often infinite) of facts. Falsification then simply amounts to an observed fact which contradicts one of those. But falsification in this sense doesn't seem applicable to value statements; or is applicable with great difficulty "This is a good axe " might be transformed into a factual statement " This axe fully conforms to the general functional expectation of an axe" say; and that functional expectation would imply many facts. But "This is a good person" would be much more problematic to so transform; certainly in any sense which would have general acceptance regards Rohan