Some empiricists (like J.S. Mill) say that "2+2=4" is based on sense experience. We find, for example, that when we count 2 flowers, and then 2 others, if we count them all together we count 4 flowers. Since we experience this again and again, we derive the general principle that "2+2=4."
Some empiricists (like J.S. Mill) say that "2+2=4" is based on sense experience. We find, for example, that when we count 2 flowers, and then 2 others, if we count them all together we count 4 flowers. Since we experience this again and again, we derive the general principle that "2+2=4."
Ayer sees "2+2=4" as certain. Nothing based on sense experience is certain. So "2+2=4" isn't based on sense experience.
Suppose we count 2 flowers, and then 2 others, and then count 5 all together. Would we conclude that here 2+2=5? Surely not! We'd conclude that we miscounted or that additional flowers were produced the last time. Since "2+2=4" is true by definition, no possible observations could show it to be false.
Some empiricists (like J.S. Mill) say that "2+2=4" is based on sense experience. We find, for example, that when we count 2 flowers, and then 2 others, if we count them all together we count 4 flowers. Since we experience this again and again, we derive the general principle that "2+2=4."
Ayer sees "2+2=4" as certain. Nothing based on sense experience is certain. So "2+2=4" isn't based on sense experience.
Suppose we count 2 flowers, and then 2 others, and then count 5 all together. Would we conclude that here 2+2=5? Surely not! We'd conclude that we miscounted or that additional flowers were produced the last time. Since "2+2=4" is true by definition, no possible observations could show it to be false.