Do you agree with this theory?

Question

Many people have been basing judgments on the fact that nothing can be disproven unless you have evidence saying thats its impossible under all circumstances. Although some things may be backed with this, i dont think that this theory should be used commonly.

Answer 1

I believe the only way to say that something is impossible is to disprove every instance that the idea was suggested. Example being the loch ness monster. The only way they can totally disprove the idea would be to disprove every sighting and occurence associated with it, which they cannot truly do

Answer 2

Not correct. The correct statement is: The predictive power of any theory obtains exclusively from its refutability. Corollary: An irrefutable theory can predict nothing. Most scientific theories are universal statements, which can not be proven (there may be an exception not yet found), but can be disproven by the presentation of any counterexample. One scientific theory is different: the theory of evolution. It consists of existential statements only, which can be shown to be true by the presentation of any example. This means that the theory of evolution can be proven to be correct, and I have done so. Note that the first theorem presented is of the utmost importance: the use of that theorem is the only way that anyone can learn anything. (Of course, most people learn things without considering the theoretical aspects of the process.)

Answer 3

Error in logic
How can someting be disproved? Can you prove that I am not an eggplant? I think not. Science can prove a hypothesis false, but this is not the same thing as proving a negitive. Example, after many expierements I find that the amount of food I give my cat does not effect it's brain size. Does this prove that cats do not need food for their brain to grow?

Answer 4

To rhsaunders:

I would absolutely oppose any claim that evolution is fundamentally different from all other theories in science ... and so would most scientists. It can do nothing but feed into the strategy, already attempted by creationists, to isolate evolution from science so that they can call it "non-scientific."

I would urge you to hesitate before going there.

Answer 5

That's not a theory, it's a statement about logic. It's an incorrect statement. If any part of an assertion is incorrect, the entire assertion is incorrect.