Can verificationism itself be verified?

That is a silly question, and a negative answer can't be used to "refute" verificationism. Ladyman and Ross:

"our verificationism isn't supposed to itself be something established as true. It's just a stance that seems very sensible because if you don't adopt it you can conjecture worlds without limit and indulge in analytic metaphysics that will appear useless to everyone else." (Protecting Rainforest Realism, 2010)