Disproving vs Proving: Certainty of Results

  • Thread starter Thread starter 15123
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Disproving a hypothesis is often easier than proving one due to the nature of evidence required in both math and science. In mathematics, a single counterexample can invalidate a claim, while in science, a theory requires multiple verifiable experiments to gain acceptance. The discussion highlights that no single experiment can definitively prove a hypothesis true; it may only suggest a possibility. The concept of entropy is introduced, emphasizing that it is generally easier to destroy than to create. Overall, the conversation underscores the inherent uncertainty in proving scientific claims compared to disproving them.
15123
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Whyis it easier to disprove something than to prove something?

Why can you have more certainty of something being untrue?
Why is it hard to say something is true if the experiment's result yields it being true? Why is it a 'big maybe'?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
15123 said:
Whyis it easier to disprove something than to prove something?

Why can you have more certainty of something being untrue?
Why is it hard to say something is true if the experiment's result yields it being true? Why is it a 'big maybe'?

Are you asking a math question or a science question?

In math finding a counterexample is the easiest way to disprove something.

In science you can never "prove" anything. If the idea leads to many verifiable experiments then it could be an acceptable theory. One experiment may not be enough.
 
It is a statistics question. I followed the example of the 'swan experiment'.
 
15123 said:
It is a statistics question. I followed the example of the 'swan experiment'.
I am not familiar with the swan experiment. Does it have anything to do with black swans?
 
Direction of Entropy

The direction of entropy: it is easier to destroy than create
 

Thread 'Deductive proof in logic formal systems'

I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Bunkbed Conjecture Debunked?
Replies
0
Views
2K
MHB Proving/Disproving "Every Pot Has a Lid
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Why are the inverse and converse of an implication not equivalent?
Replies
39
Views
4K
I Is the fork in the Einstein Podolsky Rosen argument correct?
Replies
45
Views
2K
I Can Ockham’s razor be used to make quick qualitative predictions?
Replies
23
Views
2K
I Adding random numbers: Tolerance analysis
Replies
11
Views
3K
I Sample space, outcome, event, random variable, probability...
Replies
6
Views
3K
B Understanding La Disjonction de Cas Reasoning
Replies
3
Views
2K
A Clarification regarding argument in EPR paper
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
MHB Operations on Sets: Proving A⊆B⊆C & A∪B=B∩C
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top