Yes. If you have a theory about how things work, it might turn out to be true or it might turn out to be false. The more you know about the subject, the stronger the theory is likely to be, and the likelier it is that the theory will be proven.
If your issues are on the table, then it would be apparent that empirical evidence would trump theory, if the theory on the table were not proven to be true. If the theory were proven to be true, and the empirical evidence does not agree with the theory, then more experimentation would be necessary to determine the validity of the theory.
The claim that the fleas in a jar experiment is true is false.
A catuskoti logical argument is a form of reasoning that allows for four possible truth values: true, false, both true and false, and neither true nor false. An example of a catuskoti argument could be: "This statement is true, this statement is false, this statement is both true and false, this statement is neither true nor false." This type of argument is often used in Eastern philosophy to explore paradoxes and contradictions.
The information I have found contradicts the statement "not true," indicating that it is indeed false.
One classic example of a paradox is the "liar paradox," which revolves around a statement that cannot consistently be true or false. An example would be the statement "This statement is false." If the statement is true, then it must be false, but if it is false, then it must be true, creating a paradoxical situation.
False
false
true
false!!
True.
FALSE :)))
True
True.
true
It is false.
False
False. In theory there were many fronts.