T-Rex: In verificationism, a sentence has to be verifiably true (or false!) for it be meaningful. Not bad, guys! I think this is one philosophy that is verifiably REASONABLE.
T-Rex: So that's it for arguing about religion! Can't verify faith!
T-Rex: In fact, that's it for a lot of debate, because how can you argue FACTS? Most verificationist arguments must end with the parties involved looking things up in an encyclopaedia together and then firmly shaking hands.
Dromiceiomimus: But if they can't verify something, what do they do?
T-Rex: They agree that the sentence is meaningless! If it can't be checked, there's no use considering it, so it's ignored. Facts only, please!!
Utahraptor: But how does anyone know what's true?
T-Rex: Because... because of Science?
Utahraptor: Come on, T-Rex, you know better! Science is about being empirically ACCURATE, which might not be the same thing as being true. Plus your senses could be lying to you, you could be a brain in a jar, etc.. If you're going to be verificationist, you're going to need a pretty impregnable definition of "truth".
T-Rex: Aha! But I can't VERIFY that my senses are liars, nor can I verify that I'm a brain in a jar! How does THAT taste, Utahraptor?
Off panel: You can verify the science thing!
T-Rex: Can you just tell me how it tastes, when you put THAT in your pipe and smoke it?
