In logical positivism, what type of language is considered meaningless?

In logical positivism, non-cognitive statements are regarded as meaningless because they do not hold truth values and cannot be verified through empirical observation or logical deduction. Logical positivists, such as members of the Vienna Circle, argue that for a statement to possess meaning, it must either be analytically true (true by definition) or empirically verifiable.

Non-cognitive statements typically include those expressing emotions, attitudes, or prescriptive claims, such as ethical judgments or aesthetic assessments. Since these statements cannot be confirmed or falsified through empirical testing, logical positivists dismiss them as lacking cognitive content. This emphasis on verifiability places significant restrictions on meaningful discourse, clearly defining the boundaries between meaningful statements and those deemed nonsensical in a scientific context.

In contrast, empirical statements, a priori statements, and cognitive statements retain meaningfulness under the logical positivist framework. Empirical statements are anchored in observable phenomena, while a priori statements can be logically deduced and thus carry meaning. Cognitive statements refer broadly to propositions that can be ascribed truth values, further solidifying their place in the realm of meaningful discourse.