Talk:Verifiability theory of meaning: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Petréa Mitchell
(Article checklist)
imported>Subpagination Bot
m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details))
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
{{subpages}}
|                abc = Verifiability theory of meaning
|                cat1 = Philosophy
|                cat2 =
|                cat3 =
|          cat_check = n
|              status = 4
|        underlinked = y
|            cleanup = y
|                  by = [[User:Petréa Mitchell|Petréa Mitchell]] 21:57, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
}}


First, it's not clear to me that this article is needed; the "verifiability theory of meaning" is the verification principle.  The article starts by saying that the former is only derived from the latter, but goes on (correctly) to treat them as the same.
First, it's not clear to me that this article is needed; the "verifiability theory of meaning" is the verification principle.  The article starts by saying that the former is only derived from the latter, but goes on (correctly) to treat them as the same.

Latest revision as of 18:13, 15 November 2007

This article is basically copied from an external source and has not been approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Theory which posits that a statement is literally meaningful (it expresses a proposition) if and only if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Philosophy [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

First, it's not clear to me that this article is needed; the "verifiability theory of meaning" is the verification principle. The article starts by saying that the former is only derived from the latter, but goes on (correctly) to treat them as the same.

Secondly, it needs a lot of work in any case. Aside from copy-editing issues, it contains much rather vague gesturing at what unnamed people have suggested, argued, etc., in unnamed places. I've removed a couple of extreme cases, but more needs to be done.

Ah, I've just discovered that it's a Wikipedia article, which was turned into a redirect to Verificationist. --Peter J. King  Talk  09:15, 9 April 2007 (CDT)