3 ms·

Isn't this just the scientific method? Disproving a hypothesis is much easier than proving one.

• hprotagonist 5y ago
  Arguably you can only refute hypotheses, if you're of the empiricist mindset about testability, so in a sense that's even _more_ stringent. TRIZ seems to admit of situations where basically, you don't know enough about what your hypothesis ought to be that 'the scientific method' won't get you far enough, so you must proceed by walling off as much of your search space as possible as fast as possible by prioritizing the rejection of negative outcomes rather than identification of positive ones.
  • queuebert 5y ago
    Doesn't this implicitly assume that the negatives are easier to enumerate than the positives? What is the test for this? Gut feeling?
    • PeterisP 5y ago
      If you are able to find a positive solution, you have solved your problem already. If you're looking for special problem solving techniques, then this implies that for your particular case you are not capable of "enumerating positives" for this problem.
    • hprotagonist 5y ago
      in optimization theory, you pick a cost function and evaluate it. What cost function to choose is, in fact, something of a matter of taste. Nobody really likes saying that part out loud, though :)
    • WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      > Doesn't this implicitly assume that the negatives are easier to enumerate than the positives? In my experience, the lowest-hanging fruit tend to be negatives. Once those are gone, the negatives that are left require more creativity to ascertain.