Before verification was pronounced as an actually principle, experiments were used to test whether or not a theory was true. During the time of Galileo, it was a known fact that water in a pump barrel would not lift any higher that thirty four feet. Though out time the experimental method was used to prove the truthfulness of the water height to give an explanation for such a thing. A student of GalileoвЂ™s. Toricella concluded that the air pressure explains why the water would only go as high as thirty four feet. Although there was no direct evidence to prove ToricellaвЂ™s theory to be true, it was proven indirectly with the use of a mercury barometer, which made length measurements easier to understand. Shortly there after, the principle of verifiability was introduced and defined as wanting to describe the conditions that make a particular theory true. The main objective to the principle of verifiability is to maintain the theory to be true, in all aspects. When subjecting science to the verification principle, one must be aware that there may be some consequences involved. Many may believe that verification would go hand and hand with science because they both should be based only of the proven facts, but that is not the case. Science may sometimes contradict the verification because it is an attempt to systematically refute the said theory. The principle of verifiability relies heavily on the induction method, which is the belief that we can come up with empirical generalizations for our theories. The conflict with science would stand that we are not logically justified to make empirical generalizations based only on our experiences. The verification principle takes the risk of making the theory uninformative. This is done so by adding unnecessary principles to it, because we want to make it so there is not possible way to refute it.
But, what do we really mean when we state that science is true? Is it just the shared, considered opinion of an arbitrary number of people who may or may not be qualified to make such a judgment based on a limited amount of data? Or do we actually mean objective truth? Knowledge of a possible objective truth requires omniscience. If you do not know what you do not know, you cannot say that what you think you know cannot be disproven by the next observation of related phenomena. Many scientists arrogantly assume their pet theory is true, when no one can be absolutely certain of anything, ever. We, as non-omniscient beings, should never presume to be certain of anything. The words fact and truth either need to be redefined to correctly express the inherent uncertainty of our existence, or we should never use those words because they are beyond our capacity to discern.