Can you disprove a hypothesis?
I got points off on a logic exam because I said that "we can be conclusively refute but cannot confirm a hypothesis". The corrected answer was "neither conclusively confirm nor refute hypotheses".
Am I a brainlet or was this graded wrong?
This is probably a self serving retelling of events. Can you describe further? Clearly you could refute the hypothesis "all dogs are white" by observing a black dog.
But what if an evil demon is manipulating your vision to see the dog as black even though it's actually white?
Checkmate, empiricists
Where do they give "logic exams"?
In a logic class.
It was literally a multiple choice question, and I was thinking that yeah you can't prove a hypothesis but you can reject the hypothesis. That's why I was confused because this answer is essentially saying we can't do anything and there's no point to a hypothesis then.
The professor is probably one of those "you can't know nuffin" guys. I wouldn't worry about it too much.
>implying God would let that happen
heretics get out
Yes, assuming the hypothesis is absurd.
not if the number of black dogs was statistically insignificant
Hypothesis can never be proven to be true.
"There are no purple cows" merely means no one has seen one yet.
But one _could_ show up next week. Therefore, hypothesis can be proven false.
Hypotheses are still useful. Imagine having one "falling body" rule for stones, another for the Moon, and another for cannonballs. Newton surmised ONE rule would work for all. Size and composition didn't matter. That was a hypothesis which summarized many many observations into one simple formula and it had predictive power, telling you what _would_ happen in the future.
There are refutable hypotheses that can only be refuted (all dogs are white) and testable hypotheses that can never be refuted (there exists blue grass)
Hypotheses *in general* can neither be proven nor disproven.
good post
He said 'all dogs', not 'the majority of dogs'
Hypothesis: there is at least one purple cow.
If I find a purple cow, I believe that's proven.
If you conclusively refute a hypothesis aren't you necessarily confirming another hypothesis?
>u cant no nothing
Brainlet class.
If the question was _in general_ then the corrected answer is right, because there are both unrefutable and unconfirmable hypotheses.
If the question was _for any_ hypothesis then you're both wrong because you can confirm existential hypotheses and refute universal hypotheses.
In either case your answer was wrong and you don't deserve any marks.
You would still have sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that it is not white, even if you happen to be wrong.
is right and I stand corrected.
Same "contrarian" hypothesis came to me after I posted .
"Within the next five days, some brainlet will post a query on Veeky Forums proving he knows absolutely nothing about physics."
That's a hypothesis. I give it a very high probability, based on past experience, but I can't prove it - now.
But it'll become a _fact_ (or not) within five days. That single post will PROVE (and not merely "confirm") it.
ALL hypotheses cannot be proven; "It is possible to live forever." It would take forever to prove this.
>In a logic class.
please leave the athene cult.
what if white is a generalization of a spectrum of colours
If your hypothesis is "There exists a black dog" then you can confirm it by observing a black dog but not refute it. If the hypothesis is "For every dog, there is a bigger dog", you can neither refute it nor confirm it since no matter what dog you found, there might or might not be a bigger one.
you cant prove generalities unless you can measure all the cases of that generality .
like its impossible to prove the law of gravity because we cant measure it in all points in space in all time , there may be a dick shaped space on the moon where it dosnt apply for 10^-(10^999) seconds
You could refute it, you'd just have to have very well-defined notions of bigness and dogness, and show that a dog above a certain size can't possibly exist. Completely unrealistic, but in principle.
That would seem to depend on the hypothesis.
If the hypothesis is that I will never post on Veeky Forums's Veeky Forums, that is now definitively refuted.
If the hypothesis is that I will post at least once on Veeky Forums's Veeky Forums, then this is now irrefutably confirmed.