3 ms·
You rarely need to disprove things. You need to prove them.
by odonnellryan 5y ago
You rarely need to disprove things. You need to prove them.
- cochne 5y agoAll of modern science is built on the philosophy that you can only reject the null hypothesis, not prove the positive hypothesis.
- odonnellryan 5y agoI think we're talking on different wavelengths. I'm not saying disproving something is an invalid way of operating. I'm saying it is not required of people to disprove things from the start, it is required to try and prove them. Math and other sciences are a little different, where people enjoy taking statements and trying to disprove them, but even in that context we rarely or never consider the statement true until considerable effort has at least gone into disproving them. That doesn't work in real life, though. You can't make claims and have them stand until someone bothers to disprove them.
- webmaven 5y ago> You rarely need to disprove things. You need to prove them. Disproving things may be rarely needed, but it is important to demonstrate that they are disprovable (ie. falsifiable). Things that aren't disprovable can, like invisible and immaterial pink unicorns, be safely ignored.