Is it harder to prove a hypothesis than to disprove it

03/03/2009 · Is it easier to prove or to disprove in Science

Is the existence of god hard to prove and disprove ..

Therefore, believing in aliens is a scientific hypothesis because it can be disproved (even though we haven't disproved it yet and might never manage to disprove it).



If Psychologists want to be scientific, as well as an alternative hypothesis, they will need to frame a .

This ties in with Karl Popper's idea that scientists should try to falsify their theories by trying to prove the null hypothesis to be true.

Is it easier to disprove a theory than to prove it? - Quora

Not all theories can be proved to be facts, but knowing this, we can also know that even if we had never proved the existence of the missing elements, they would have still existed. Thus, his theory is truly independent of our ability to prove or disprove it.

You try to disprove evolution, backing a theory with absolutely no proof with a distinctly 100% chance of not ever having any. Way to go.

Nonetheless, in some sense the Popperian approach to hypothesis testing is still correct: we cannot "prove" the hypothesis.

Answer to Which is generally easier to accomplish? Prove a hypothesis Disprove a hypothesis


Statistical methods will never prove or disprove a hypothesis ..

example: Abortion is murder, since killing a baby is an act of murder. example: Have you stopped beating your wife?
13. TAUTOLOGY: (a sub-category of circular argument) defining terms or qualifyingan argument in such a way that it would be impossible to disprove the argument. Often, therationale for the argument is merely a restatement of the conclusion in different words.

for one who is asked to decisively disprove the statement ..

Christian Theism in its most basic sense entails observations that would necessarily be made by everyone everywhere and at all times, and thus it is as easily disproven as the alien in the bathtub. For instance, God is theoretically omnipresent, and granted us the ability to know him (to feel his loving presence, etc.), yet I have absolutely no sensation of any God or anything that would be entailed by a God, even though by definition he is within me and around me wherever I go. Likewise, God is theoretically the epitome of compassion, and also all-knowing and all-powerful and beyond all injury, yet I know that what demonstrates someone as compassionate is the alleviation of all suffering known to them and safely within their power to alleviate. All suffering in the world must be known and safely within the power of God to alleviate, yet it is still there, and since the Christian 'theory' entails the opposite observation, Christianity is false. Likewise, God theoretically designed the universe for a moral purpose, but the universe lacks moral features--animals thrive by survival of the fittest, not survival of the kindest, and the laws of physics are no respecter of persons, they treat the good man and the bad man equally. Moreover, the universe behaves like a mindless machine, and exhibits no intelligent action of its own accord, and there are no messages or features of a linguistic nature anywhere in its extra-human composition or behavior, such as we would expect if a thinking person had designed it and wanted to communicate with us.

data and using it to prove or disprove ..

This amounts to a "best guess" solution, where we recognize that a statement may be true, but have insufficient grounds to believe it. Or, in the case of propositions for which we have abundant but incomplete proof, we recognize that it may be false, but have insufficient grounds to it. This is the basic principle behind all hypothetical thought, from the theories of science, to the "sun will come up tomorrow" variety of common sense. Given the set of all propositions of the first kind (where there is a lack of evidence despite some reasonable measure of checking), nearly all of them are false, so it is a safe bet to assume they are all false until proven otherwise. Conversely, given the set of all propositions of the second kind (where there is continuous evidence after some reasonable measure of checking), nearly all of them are true, so it is a safe bet to assume they are true until proven otherwise.