An hypothesis is falsifiable if some observation might show it to be false.
Besides the indefinite article, it sounds straightforwardly correct to me, but if people are being so dense as to not understand it, maybe couch it in a conditional: "if it is false, there is some observation that can show it to be false". — Pfhorrest
An hypothesis is falsifiable if counterevidence relevent to such an hypothesis could be observed.An hypothesis is falsifiable if some observation might show it to be false.
If it's wrong, I might notice.How else would you summarise falsifiability in ten words or less? — Banno
Perhaps a better approach for concision is via the negative. If a non-falsifiable hypothesis is false, no one will ever know.How else would you summarise falsifiability in ten words or less? — Banno
How else would you summarise falsifiability in ten words or less?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.