3 ms·
ok, this makes lot of sense, I guess I somewhat misparsed the text. EDIT: I wonder if it counts as misreading or misunderstanding, to not notice that a word is
by mijoharas 12y ago
ok, this makes lot of sense, I guess I somewhat misparsed the text.
EDIT: I wonder if it counts as misreading or misunderstanding, to not notice that a word is an auto-antonym?
- wglb 12y agoHow is that an antonym? The point to "falsifiable" is the statement is made about an event is capable of being false, not that it is false.
- Semiapies 12y agoUse of the word outside of scientific contexts often confuses people, because the common verb "falsify" has a completely different meaning.
- mijoharas 12y agoauto-antonym[0] is a word that means both one thing, and something else that is the opposite of that. This dictionary[1] (second result on google) has definition one meaning the opposite of definition two, thus the word is an auto-antonym. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/falsifiable http://www.thefreedictionary.com/falsifiable
- roel_v 12y agoThose two definitions aren't opposites of each other. They're two different things.
- bildung 12y agoThink about falsifiable as "veriviable"/"provable". Falsifibility in Patricks sentence stems from scientific theory. From the POV of critical rationalism a thing is never really provable because there always remains a bit of doubt whether the observed result of an action really is a result of that action and not secretly influenced by some unknown variable. But a proper theory is falsifiable, i.e. it can be proven that action did not lead to a specific result. So think of Patricks statement as "always give concrete, measurable goals".