Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gideongallery
You not that stupid so stop pretending to try and justify your arguement
The opposite of "all geese are white" is not and will never be "no geese are white" it is "all geese are NOT white" that is specifically why i said "the opposite in it's entirety not just in part". There are tests for however one test is infinately more manageable than the other. to prove all geese are white to be false you need to produce one goose that is not white. To prove that all geese are NOT white, you need to prove that you have collected all geese and that they are all white.
|
Proving ¬¬AxWhite(x) (which is the same as proving ¬AxWhite(x) wrong) is equally impossible as proving AxWhite(x), since they are logically equivalent.
No matter how you look at it, your argument does not make sense and is, in fact, entirely incorrect. Sorry, but you missed the point entirely."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gideongallery
If your interpretation was correct we would not have a single LAW, which makes the entire question moot.
The problem is that there are LAWs of science (the law of contant gravity (G) for example).
In the case of the law of constant gravity, we were able to determine all of the counter forces (air resistance) that prevented a feather from hitting the ground at the same time as the buckshot and create an enviroment where that force would not apply (vacuum) and test under that situation.
The theory of contant gravity force was the counter theorem to the theory of mass dependent gravitational force (which was the prevelent theory btw).
The test of an object falling in a vacuum had to prove one of those theories to be false (either the objects would hit the botton at the same time, or they would not).
We got the LAW of constant gravity because they hit the bottom at the same time.
|
You are wrong. Plain and simple. Science does not need a "counter theory" for every theory, which can be proven false, which would somehow prove the other theory right. That's abject nonsense, and does not make sense on any level - if only because theory x being wrong says absolutely nothing about theory y.
A "law" is a theory which has survived so many tests that people don't doubt it anymore. Nevertheless, it is only a very strong theory, and has not been proven true because the induction problem makes it logically impossible to prove empirical theories.