I especially enjoyed the third video.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6TNCbXxVyY
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6TNCbXxVyY>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9S-yXR9l1E
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9S-yXR9l1E>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo&feature=youtu.be
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo&feature=youtu.be>
>
>
> While there is a clear difference between probabilistic and universal
> generalizations, it's worth noting that reasoning with probabilities
> is usually a deductive affair.
> It's not the principles of reasoning and or argument that are
> different so much as the content of the propositions about which you may
> reason and or argue.
> Falsifiability, as defined by the philosopher, Sir Karl Popper, defines
> the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis and that it must
> be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific
> hypothesis or theory.
>
> "A scientific statement is one that could possibly be proven wrong." Sir
> Karl Popper
> Such a statement is said to be falsifiable. But please notice that a
> falsifiable statement is not automatically wrong. However a falsifiable
> statement always remains tentative and open to the possibility that it
> is wrong. When a falsifiable statement turns out to be a mistake, we
> have a way to detect that mistake and correct it.
> Therefore it seems to be important not to confuse falsifiable,
> falsified, and false!
> [:D]
> have a good night and sleep well, too
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"
> <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" jr_esq@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Sharalyn" <homeonthefarm@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My undergraduate degree is in philosophy but I can't seem to grasp
> the concept of FALSIFIABILITY, and why it is important. Can anyone
> explain it to me in some way different than, say, what Wikipedia has to
> say about it? (I've already read Wikipedia and came out as confused as
> ever on this topic.)
> > > >
> > > Sharalyn,
> > >
> > > That's a good question. We could learn from your idea and put them
> in practice while making assertions here on this forum. Often times,
> many of the assertions are personal and emotional which cannot be
> accepted as scientific truths. So, here's Wikipedia's definition of
> falsifiability in science:
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
> >
> > Erm, I'm fairly sure that might be the very same wikipedia article
> > that get her all confused in the first place.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > JR
> > >
> >
>
