How do you demonstrate, as part of a political policy discussion, that a given hypothesis is false?

Boojatta

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 05:16 PM
Original message

How do you demonstrate, as part of a political policy discussion, that a given hypothesis is false?

"A hypothesis which cannot be falsified is, ultimately, of no value whatsoever"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Recursion

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 05:19 PM
Response to Original message

1. Generally you produce an example that contradicts a predicted example

eg, if someone has the hypothesis that all swans are white, you show him a black swan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Boojatta

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #1

3. Is that supposed to be an example of an irrelevant tangent within a political policy discussion?

After all, not many political policy discussions focus on the colors of swans. Could you give an example that is more political?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Recursion

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. Someone suggests that people who are homeless are lazy

So you find an example of a homeless person who is not lazy, but who lost his house because of an unexpected illness his insurance company refuses to cover. Presidents do it in the State of the Union all the time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Boojatta

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. That seems to be an example of a hypothesis that can be shown to be false, and

that is also of no value, except for the tactical value of tending to discredit political opponents who stake their credibility on the alleged truth of the hypothesis.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Recursion

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #6

8. Huh?

Can you try to explain what you want again, a little more clearly?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Boojatta

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. Look at the original question of this thread...

How do you demonstrate, as part of a political policy discussion, that a given hypothesis is false?

If we were talking about a scientific hypothesis, then it would be clear that the problem isn't merely to express in words, for the benefit of an audience of undecided people, something that you already know. The problem would be to add to your own knowledge by somehow showing that a hypothesis that appears to be plausible is actually false.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Recursion

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-29-10 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #9

17. Well, once again

You either take an event the hypothesis predicts must happen, and show it doesn't happen, or you take an event the hypothesis predicts can't happen, and show it does happen. I'm not getting what's so obscure about this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Terry in Austin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 05:25 PM
Response to Original message

2. Experimentally

At least, that's what you do in science, where the idea of a falsifiable hypothesis is central to scientific method.

Unfortunately, this epistemological gem doesn't transfer too well to the realm of political policy. Yeah, it should, but it just doesn't seem to get much traction there in practice.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Iterate

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 05:44 PM
Response to Original message

5. Historical and scientific fidelity, internal logic,

and unconsidered consequences often give someone up. I find it useful to listen carefully for hidden assumptions that might have no basis. You can always appeal to a more all encompassing moral value.

It's probably simpler though to just mention Nazis.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Boojatta

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 07:09 PM
Response to Original message

7. Kick

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Boojatta

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 10:00 PM
Response to Original message

10. Kick

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mmonk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 10:03 PM
Response to Original message

11. Ask Galileo.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Boojatta

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #11

12. Can you provide a link to something Galileo wrote about political policy?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mmonk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #12

13. I was responding to the concept of how one can prove a given hypothesis is false.

Sometimes, proof doesn't work or isn't enough when people are stuck on a belief as opposed to any interest in what may be factual. As to what you are speaking specifically, I do not know what it is you seek to prove.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TheKentuckian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 10:49 PM
Response to Original message

14. Historical evidence, logical flow, chipping away at details until the whole cannot stand???

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ChoppinBroccoli

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 10:55 PM
Response to Original message

15. Maybe It Would Be Easier If You Just Told Us The Right-Wing Lie You're Trying To "Refudiate"

It's much easier that way. Speaking in theory and hypothesis makes it too hard to understand. I guarantee you that if you give us the specific talking point, someone here will have a devastating "refudiation" of it.

For example, the "hypothesis" I've been battling lately is this notion that tax cuts create jobs. That one is ridiculously, outrageously easy to disprove. All you have to say is, "There have been tax cuts in place for 10 years. Where are the jobs?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Motown_Johnny

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-28-10 11:00 PM
Response to Original message

16. with specifies. For example, some consider Republicans fiscally responsible

and able to control the deficit through spending cuts and keeping taxes low

yet the last time a Republican administration oversaw a balanced federal budget was 1970 and the top tax rate was 71.75% (which kicked in at $200,00/yr)

Hypothesis: Republicans can fix our fiscal problems with tax cuts

Specifics: they have never done that in the entire history of this nation and there is no reason to believe they can do it now

What hypothesis are you trying to disprove?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Fri May 03rd 2024, 03:05 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.