I don’t think they do. But that should not be in dispute. The point of a logical argument is to achieve complete clarity about the premises and the way they imply the conclusion.
I added two lemmas to clarify. I guess you could quibble with lemma 2, I think it does follow if we assume that we know or at least can know premise 3, but that seems plausible if you’re willing to accept it as a premise at all.
That’s not the standard verificationist claim, which is more that things are meaningful if they can be verified as true or false.
No, it would be circular if I defined meaning to already include the verificationist claim.
Rather, I define meaning in other terms and then argue that this implies the verificationist claim.
There are gaps in the argument, then.
My premises imply the conclusion. You might not like some of the premises, perhaps.
I don’t think they do. But that should not be in dispute. The point of a logical argument is to achieve complete clarity about the premises and the way they imply the conclusion.
I added two lemmas to clarify. I guess you could quibble with lemma 2, I think it does follow if we assume that we know or at least can know premise 3, but that seems plausible if you’re willing to accept it as a premise at all.
I could break it up into more steps if it’s not entirely clear that the premises imply the conclusion.