you can prove a hypothesis false by giving a counterexample
say you had the hypothesis "all whole numbers are odd", which holds for 1 and 3 but once you try 2 the hypothesis is proved wrong
but giving a lot of examples that are consistent with the hypothesis does no prove it to be true
the 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.
Examples of deductive order include proving a mathematical theorem by following logical steps, writing a research paper by providing evidence to support a hypothesis, and constructing a legal argument by applying specific laws to a case.
An example of "not disproven, so true" would be stating that telekinesis (mind over matter) exists. An example of "not proven, so false" would be that global warming (only a theory) must be wrong.
Indirect reasoning is a method of proving a statement by showing that its negation leads to a contradiction or inconsistency. Instead of proving a statement directly, one assumes the negation of the statement and derives a contradiction to demonstrate that the original statement must be true.
Odysseus showed them his scar, which had been caused by a boar when he was a child. Only the real Odysseus would know about this scar, proving his identity to Philoetius and Eumaeus.
Odysseus convinced the swineherd Eumaeus of his true identity by revealing a scar that he had received years ago while boar hunting. This scar was a unique identifier that only Odysseus would possess, proving his authenticity to Eumaeus.
A statement that presents a possible solution to a problem is the hypothesis. You construct a hypothesis, then work to prove it. Basic geometry concentrates on proving various nypotheses.
'THEORY'
'THEORY'
To do it right
The idea that you are testing or proving/disproving.
proving a hypothesis to be false.
you would figure it out my getting all the supplys you need and then testing it
No, accepting a hypothesis is not the same as proving it to be true. Accepting a hypothesis typically means that it is considered plausible based on available evidence, but it has not undergone rigorous testing or validation to confirm its truth. Proving a hypothesis requires systematic experimentation and analysis that yields consistent results, establishing it as a reliable explanation of a phenomenon. In science, hypotheses remain subject to revision or rejection as new evidence emerges.
kkk
This statement is correct because a hypothesis is a proposed explanation that has not been validated through experimentation and evidence. Scientific inquiry aims to test and gather evidence to support or reject a hypothesis, rather than proving it true. It is always possible for new evidence or data to emerge that could challenge or refine a hypothesis.
You can falsify a hypothesis because it is possible to design experiments or gather evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, thus showing it is not valid. However, proving a hypothesis true is more challenging because no amount of positive evidence can account for all possible scenarios or future observations. Scientific knowledge is always provisional, meaning it can be revised or replaced with new evidence. Therefore, while you can demonstrate that a hypothesis is false, you can only support it with evidence without achieving absolute proof.
The scientific means for proving his hypothesis had not yet been developed.