For a concept or proposition to be a candidate for scientific theory, the concept must be capable of being proven false if it is wrong.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question is asking about what makes a concept or proposition a candidate for scientific theory, and presents two options to evaluate.
Option 1: 'False' — claiming that a scientific candidate must not be capable of being proven false if it is wrong. In fact, this is mischaracterizing the role of falsifiability in science. The dominant view, notably Popperian falsifiability, holds that for a claim to be scientific it must be testable in such a way that it could be shown false by empirical evidence. If a claim cannot, even in principle, be refuted by evidence, it falls into the realm of non-science or metaphysics rather than empirical science. This makes the statement in Option 1 incorrect because it asserts the opposite of falsifiability as a criterion for scientific status.
Option 2: 'True' — this aligns with the core idea that a scientific theory should be falsifiable, i.e., there must exist possible observations or experiments that could demonstrate its falsehood if it were wrong. This openness to refutation supports the empirical testing cycle central to science, allowing theories to be revised or discarded in light of new data. The notion of testability and potential refutation is what distinguishes testable scientific theories from untestable or non-scientific claims.
In examining the contrast, the key misconception in Option 1 is conflating falsifiability with impossibility of refutation. The key strength of Option 2 is that it captures the essential property that makes a claim scientifically meaningful: it can be empirically challenged and potentially proven false under suitable testing. Option 3 and any other considerations would likely reiterate the same core distinction, but since only two options are provided, the evaluation centers on whether falsifiability is being treated as a necessary condition for science.
Overall, the reasoning here centers on the correct understanding that falsifiability is a foundational criterion for scientific theories, while non-falsifiable statements resist empirical testing and thus fall outside the standard scientific framework.

BIOLOGY 109 001 WN 2025 Quiz 2

For a concept or proposition to be a candidate for scientific theory, the concept must be capable of being proven false if it is wrong.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Which criterion best distinguishes science from pseudoscience?

Question at position 21 A researcher claims, “Dreams predict the future, but only for people who truly believe in them.” Why can’t this claim be tested scientifically?It does not have a hypothesisIt is provableIt is unethical to studyIt is not falsifiable

What are the implications of Poppers Paradox?

Based on the content of video 1.2 and the Loeb reading, which statement best reflects the way Popper and Lakatos would describe string theory?

In order for a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. In other words:

A theory is said to be strong if it would be impossible to prove it is wrong.

A theory is said to be strong if it identifies many things that will not be observed if it is correct.

To assess a theory, we must ask: What observations would be consistent with it?

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler