157
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + +
→"Joe beats his children because his father beat him": new section
I've changed the definition, as the previous one was not accurate. A theory is falsifiable if it is hypothetically possible to refute it by test or observation [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 10:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
I've changed the definition, as the previous one was not accurate. A theory is falsifiable if it is hypothetically possible to refute it by test or observation [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 10:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
== "Joe beats his children because his father beat him" ==
Is it true that this claim is non-falsifiable? I don't think it is. We could falsify it by providing convincing evidence that Joe's father did not beat his children. For example, testimony of his father and mother and siblings, testimony of Joe himself, etc., could be sufficient to falsify the claim "Joe's father beat Joe as a child" and thus also the claim "Joe beats his children because his father beat him". Even if it is true that Joe's father beat him, that still doesn't mean we can't falsify the claim that "Joe beats his children because his father beat him". Suppose Joe is a heavy drinker, but then gives up alcohol, and stops beating his children. If that happened, that would suggest it was the alcohol's fault, not the fact that Joe's father beat him, and thus falsify (at least in part) the claim that his own father beating him was the cause of him beating his own children. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 09:24, 5 June 2012 (EDT)