0
It needs one counter example.
Facts.
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago
Anonymous
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the scientific theory definition?
Anextensively tested hypothesis that is accepted as the best answer we can come up with, since nobody has been able to prove it wrong yet.
Explain why it is possible to prove that a hypothesis is false but not that it is true Give an example of proving a hypothesis false?
you can prove a hypothesis false by giving a counterexamplesay you had the hypothesis "all whole numbers are odd", which holds for 1 and 3 but once you try 2 the hypothesis is proved wrongbut giving a lot of examples that are consistent with the hypothesis does no prove it to be truethe fact that you haven't found any counterexamples doesn't mean there aren't any Most science uses inductive reasoning.APEX ___________________ Take this make-believe scenario: I am investigating the properties of water, and I need to know all I can about how water, ice and heat interact. I know that when water gets cold enough, it freezes, and that when ice is exposed to heat, it melts. I might come up with a hypothesis-- a first attempt to understand what is happening with water and ice. I hypothesize: Since water is the liquid state of H2O, and liquids are warmer than their solid forms, water must be warmer than ice. It must be that as soon as water forms from melting ice, it is at least a little warmer than the ice. After all, at zero degrees water becomes ice. At this point, I do not know for sure, but I am speculating (hypothesizing) based on the general information that I have. I wonder how I can test my hypothesis: Let us assume that I can measure the temperature of ice and of water with great accuracy. I should be able to easily make a mixture of ice and water, while measuring the temperature of each independently.If my hypothesis is correct, I will find that at one atmosphere of pressure and in a chamber kept at exactly zero degrees Celsius the ice will warm to zero degrees Celsius and it will get no warmer. When it is warmer, it is water and not ice.I will also observe that the water will be at least a little above zero degrees Celsius when it first melts away from the ice.I apply heat to the ice and some ice melts.To my surprise and annoyance, I find that the water is exactly zero degrees Celsius. We have a problem. My fellow engineers need an answer, and I've been hyping my hypothesis all over the place. Eureka! I have found it! Keeping the chamber at zero degrees is the problem; as soon as the ice melts, the chamber air starts to cool the water, and it must also be cooling the thermometers, leading to an experimental error in the readings! I'll keep the chamber at 5 degrees Celsius. I go back to the lab and I notice that my containers now all have a mix of ice and water, and the chamber is at exactly zero degrees Celsius. Not only that, all the ice is now at zero degrees Celsius, and so is the water! Exactly! Now I am just plain confused. I leave the chamber exactly as it is for several days and nothing changes. Everything in the chamber is verified to be at zero degrees Celsius, water is not in the process of freezing, and the ice is no longer melting. It just all stays in equilibrium. If my hypothesis were correct, there would be no water in the chamber, because supposedly at zero degrees Celsius all water is ice, and water is always at least a little above zero degrees. My hypothesis has tanked; time for a new one. I wonder and wonder, and spend a few sleepless nights. Then I realize-- it has something to do with heat; it must. It has something to do with adding or with taking away heat... Hmmm. Testing a hypothesis is something like that. You wonder, and you explore. Hypotheses develop, and may become well-known theories when they seem to be able to withstand test after test designed to expose them false. When you think about it, how would you develop an experiment that exposes a hypothesis as true? They would be the very same tests, with results that support the hypothesis. Reality determines the outcome, not really the 'test'. A silly or inconsequential test will still show results in support of reality. But as mentioned above, even if all completed tests support a hypothesis, that is not to say that some unexpected approach will not be applied tomorrow.
During the scientific revolution how did scientist began to prove their ideas?
During the scientific revolution, the scientific method became popular as educated men took an interest in the natural world. These new scientists would test their ideas in order to form a hypothesis or theory.
Can science prove something that does not exist?
Science cannot really PROVE anything. If you consider the arguments of, for example, the 18th century philosopher David Hume, then you will see that science cannot prove things as it consistently relies on induction to form conclusions and induction does not say that something is definitely the result of something else, only that it could be or is likely or even appears at this moment to be the only explanation. Therefore, if we put this belief into the original question "Can science prove something that does not exist?", both yes and no can be argued. No because science cannot prove anything, therefore, it cannot prove something that does exist and it cannot prove something that does not exist. Yes because if you do still believe that science can prove that existing things do exist, you will believe that it can prove that non-exisiting also exist because obviously if a mistake is made to come to this false conclusion, you (the person who has found such a result) will not know the mistake has occured and will not question it if you have done everything right according to the procedures for proving things, because you believe that if you have followed such procedures then you must have proven it because that is the way you believe science works. A complicated discussion really, depends what you believe about the reliabity of 'fact' and the nature of 'proof'. it's true the science is can really prove any thing.=]
All of our rules of inference are valid In other words they will never take you from true premises to a false conclusion?
Yes, that's what it means.
If a hypothesis is proven wrong why is it still important?
Generally, creating a hypothesis is a no-win situation. The hypothesis you devise must be provable false. Your data will either prove your hypothesis false or it will fail to prove the hypothesis false. You can never prove a proper hypothesis true. Science does not prove truth, it simply discards the false.
Why must an hypothesis must be testable?
If a hypothesis does not generate any observational tests, there is nothing that a scientist can do with itRead more: Explain_why_a_hypothesis_must_be_testableANS2:If an hypothesis is not testable, it cannot be provable false. If it cannot be provable false it cannot be supported. If it cannot be supported, it adds nothing to science. An hypothesis is a "no-win" proposition. You need to try to prove it false. That being the case, you either prove it false (lose) or you fail to prove it false (lose). Failing to prove an hypothesis false is the basis for supporting it.
Is it rare to prove a hypothesis through experimentation true or false?
It is rare and difficult to prove a hypothesis true or false through experimentation. While it is typically easy to prove something completely false, proving it true is another story.
Is it true or false that it is rare to prove a hypothesis as incorrect through experimentation?
It is false.
What should you do if your hypothesis is refuted?
"refute" means to prove to be false or erroneous. Therefore you should abandon your hypothesis because it is wrong.
What is meaning by saying that a hypothesis must be testable?
In Karl Popper's terminology there must be a way to prove a hypothesis false. That is what it means when scientists say that a specific hypothesis is a "testable hypothesis".
How do you answer a hypothesis in an experiment?
it is a educated guessANS2:You can answer the hypothesis by either proving it false or by failing to prove it false. One must never claim to have proven an hypothesis true. Truth does not exist in science. You can find truth in logic, mathematics, and religion.
What are two possible outcomes to prove an experiments hypothesis?
To prove the hypothesis. To disprove the hypothesis.
What does scientific hypothesis mean?
It is a falsifiable theory about some scientific aspect. Falsifiable means that it must be possible to devise a test whose outcome can prove the hypothesis is false.
How many experiments does it take to show that a hypothesis is false?
one
Is it true or false that a scientific theory can never be disproven?
Scientific theories can be disproved. This is a key part of the scientific method, creating hypothesis that can be disproved if they are incorrect. However, you can never really prove a hypothesis - you can find evidence that either fits or doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit the hypothesis needs to be revised or thrown out. If the evidence supports the hypothesis, there may be something that you are missing which may reject the hypothesis.
What can experiments prove?
An experiment can prove or disprove a hypothesis.
