Falsificationism is the most basic and decisive link in the framework of scientific philosophy established by Popper. Popper once said that what cannot be falsified is not real science.
First of all, it should be clear that falsehood is a proposition used to describe the characteristics of a proposition (including explanation, conclusion and prediction, and I like to summarize these characteristics). Without a proposition, it is too abstract to find a foothold. I try to explain falsification from the perspective of analyzing propositions.
Let's give a definition of falsifiability first, lest readers lose interest: falsifiability refers to the possibility that a proposition is overturned by an individual. Mirror image and verifiability refer to the possibility that a proposition can be confirmed by an individual. It's possible, but it doesn't mean it will happen.
(A) the classification of propositions
Proposition is obviously composed of subject-predicate-object or main system table. Subject or object can refer to a set (such as human beings) or an individual. There will be more love words in the predicate, and then analyze them slowly.
Let's talk about the main table first. I don't think the main table structure is falsifiable.
Give a few examples: you are handsome; Falsification is nonsense; The network is very poor
The problem is that this adjective is too vague. As far as "you are handsome" is concerned, subjectively it may mean that I think the object is handsome; It may also be "you are more handsome than I thought"; Or it may be "You are more handsome than others I have ever met"; Wait a minute. The problem is obvious: the vague definition brings a lot of possible explanations, and at this time this proposition has an extremely large number of methods to resist falsification. For example, if I say "his face is asymmetrical and handsome", you can refute me by saying "my aesthetic preference likes his type", "he is much more handsome than others" and "he has a good temperament".
Look; What is not clearly defined is hard to refute. Therefore, I think most of the main watches (I think they are all, but I have to leave myself a way out) are not falsified.
Return to the subject-predicate-object structure. In fact, it may be easier to understand if it is called "judgment sentence". List several situations:
A. individual-judgment word-individual (or nature)
B. Individual judgment word set (in this case, it must be inclusive)
C, set-judgment word-set
D. Set-Judgment Word-Nature
Abcd is the four judgment propositions I listed. Before I break them one by one, I emphasize one more point: an ill-defined proposition is absolutely impossible to falsify! An ill-defined proposition is definitely not falsifiable! An ill-defined proposition is definitely not falsifiable! For example, "good is rewarded with good" (D proposition), how to define "good"? How to define "good karma"? If you cite an example of "what goes around comes around", I'm afraid there will be another saying that "what goes around comes around comes around, and time waits for no one". The judgment proposition is also in line with the proposition that "there is no falsification if the definition is unclear" (wait, am I demonstrating in a circular way:). At the end of the article, I will judge whether the proposition "If the proposition is not clearly defined, there is nothing to falsify" can be falsified, hehehehehe.
Predictions without time limit are definitely not falsifiable, because all attempts to falsify will be refuted by "it will happen in the future, but not now".
It is also provable and falsifiable to judge whether an individual or a set exists. Because you can't prove that something doesn't exist, you can refute it with "imperceptible existence"
All right, let's start analyzing. (All analysis is based on the premise of clearly defining the proposition)
A. individual-judgment word-individual (or nature)
This proposition must be falsified or confirmed. Judging whether an individual has a certain attribute or is equal to an individual must be verified by facts, because the individual itself is a fact.
For example, she is the girl in red that you saw in the street yesterday. This unary quadratic equation has only one solution,
B. Individual judgment word set
This proposition must be an inclusion relation, because an individual can never be greater than a set. In addition, there is the problem of language expression habits: the small comes first and the big comes last, and there is no reason. For example, the earth is a planet; The man in red is a girl. If the logical relationship is reversed: the planet is the earth, the problem is obvious.
This proposition can always be falsified when the set is clearly defined. It is easy to prove or falsify as long as it is judged whether the individual conforms to this set.
C, set-judgment word-set
This proposition must also be falsifiable and must be inclusive. Same as c
D. Set-Judgment Word-Nature
This proposition may be dangerous! If the set is infinite or huge (such as all the stars, all the rocks, all the people), then this proposition must not be conclusive. The reason is obvious: you can't verify every individual in this set to refute this proposition. I'm afraid we can only falsify.
Another proposition is cunning: the infinite set of parts-judging the nature of words. Example: Some women are stupid. This proposition cannot be falsified. Why? First of all, the expression "part" is on the muzzle of the "unclear definition" mentioned above. In addition, if we want to falsify, we must prove the nature of infinite set judgment words (women are stupid). The problem is that we have proved that this proposition is not verifiable before! Or infinite set-negative judgment word (just the opposite)-nature (all women are not stupid), which is essentially the same as infinite set-judgment word.
However, if the characteristics of labeling an infinite set conform to the * * * property (definition) of the infinite set itself, then even if this proposition is theoretically unverifiable, it must be falsifiable and absolutely correct (note: falsifiability does not mean absolute correctness! But they may * * * save lives! )。 For example, "Not a real Muslim". . No, for example, "All handmade dumplings are made by hand."
After discussing infinite sets, it's time to talk about finite sets. For example, "all the students in this class are Grade Two" and "There are a lot of poplars in this group of Woods". Look, these are all proofs and forgeries. Just list the individuals one by one to judge whether they are in line with nature.
In addition, all propositions in mathematics are falsifiable. Because of the existence of axioms, it is possible to prove the * * * identity of infinite sets.
(2) Multiple propositions
A comprehensive proposition composed of multiple propositions, which I call multiple propositions, is generally strung together through logical relations.
For example, if your mobile phone is a smart phone, it must be capable of touch screen operation. (Hypothetical)
You won't be hungry because you have eaten enough rice. (Causality)
I answered this answer and ate a moon cake. (tied)
Although I ate a moon cake, I was still hungry. (turning point)
For the convenience of consideration, I set the logical relationship to four types: hypothesis, causality, juxtaposition and turning.
1. coordinates and steering
If we judge whether such a compound proposition can be falsified? It's actually quite simple. Sentence the first sentence, then the last sentence. Because the logical connection between them is not very strong, they can be considered separately.
For example, milk contains both calcium and protein.
It can be divided into two propositions: milk contains calcium and milk contains protein. Obviously, this proposition is falsified, but it has not been confirmed. It can be falsified only by enumerating decalcified or protein milk (which I compiled).
2. Causality
As above, it is necessary to prove the provability and falsifiability of the two propositions. However, more attention should be paid to the causal relationship of cohesion. If the first proposition (reason) is entirely to satisfy the second proposition, then whether these two propositions are falsified or not, this coincidence proposition is definitely not falsified. For example, "I am full when I am full." Obviously, "enough" is for "satiety". If you eat enough to make you full, you will be full. Give me an attempt to falsify this proposition? Ha ha.
suppose
Ditto, after analyzing the two propositions, let's pay attention to causality.
Debut title: "Fight bravely and you won't be killed by the enemy." Is it falsification? Why?
(3) Summary
There is nothing to sum up. I feel like I wrote a program. Now I can try the bug and debug it: give a few examples.
1. If the proposition is not clearly defined, there is no falsification.
2. You are very brave
3. All the stars will be hot.
4. The sum of the internal angles of all triangles is 180 degrees.
Some rabbits eat meat.
6. I am not only a boy, but also over 1.80m in height.
7. If you take too much formaldehyde for one year in a row, you are bound to get cancer.
Why don't you analyze it?