A theory is said to be strong if it is easy to prove it is right if it is right.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question presents a statement about what makes a theory 'strong' and asks you to evaluate it.
Option 1: 'False' — This choice challenges the idea that a theory’s strength is defined by how easy it is to prove correct when it happens to be right. In scientific philosophy, a theory’s strength is often tied to its explanatory power, predictive success, coherence with established knowledge, falsifiability, and robustness across tests. The notion that ease of proving correctness when it is correct is not typically used as a primary criterion for strength; in fact, many strong theories are difficult to prove conclusively and require rigorous testing, replication, and falsification attempts. This makes the statement questionable as a general criterion for strength.
Option 2: 'True' — Selecting this would align with an interpretation that equates strength with the ease of demonstration when the theory is indeed valid. However, in scientific practice, even a correct theory can be extremely challenging to prove conclusively due to limitations in data, experimental constraints, or boundary conditions. The probability of successful proof is not the standard measure of a theory’s strength, because many strong theories remain open to testing and may resist simple demonstration under varying circumstances. This makes the claim overly simplistic and not aligned with mainstream criteria for theory strength.
To assess misconceptions: the statement implies a direct, perhaps simplistic, link between eventual truth and ease of proof, which ignores the broader epistemic requirements such as testability, falsifiability, and empirical support. It also overlooks the fact that some true theories are hard to definitively prove due to complexity or limited evidence, and that ease of proof does not guarantee truth if evidence is misinterpreted or cherry-picked. Conversely, theories can be easy to prove in narrow cases but still be weak due to lack of generality or predictive failures elsewhere.
In summary, evaluating the statement involves distinguishing what constitutes 'strength' in a theory and recognizing that proof difficulty is not a reliable sole indicator of correctness or robustness. The nuanced view is that strong theories generally show strong explanatory and predictive power, withstand attempts at falsification, and integrate coherently with broader scientific knowledge, rather than being simply easy to prove when they are right.

BIOLOGY 109 001 WN 2025 Quiz 2

A theory is said to be strong if it is easy to prove it is right if it is right.

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

Pluralism is a view about the relationship among sciences which holds that (Check BOTH that apply)

I this week's 1919 reading, the author argues that there are some questions for which science does not have answers. Which of the following questions ARE answerable by science, based on what the author argues in this text? There may be more than one suitable answer.

Based on video 1.2, which statement(s) reflect why we need to approach the demarcation question as a family resemblance set of indicators? Select as many as apply.

It is argued that generalised one-size-fits-all models of how science works seemed doomed to failure. What supports this argument? Select as many as apply.

refers to the (sometimes contested) notion that science is simply a matter of getting more and better facts, and that all genuine knowledge is either true by definition.

Is science the correct tool to use to answer or attempt to find an answer to the question below? Write yes or no. And tell me why science IS OR IN NOT the right tool for answering the question. Do ghosts exist? Yes or no [Fill in the blank], and why [Fill in the blank], ?

This dead robin on the table has 1000 parts per million DDT in its fatty tissue.

True theories are stumbled upon by luck.

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单