Difference between revisions of "Disproof"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (bold) |
m (I'm not sure I 100% understand what this article is about) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | A '''disproof''', or anti-proof, is a well-reasoned counter-argument against a strongly-asserted claim. Disproofs are possible in the not-so-unlikely case that someone has over-looked an implicit (and false) assumption. For example, the [[kangaroo]], the [[snake]], and the [[papaya]] disprove the theory of [[evolution]], while [[volcano]]es disprove global warming (both that it exists and that humans are the cause). | + | A '''disproof''', or anti-proof, is a well-reasoned counter-argument against a strongly-asserted claim. Disproofs are possible in the not-so-unlikely case that someone has over-looked an implicit (and false) assumption. For example, [[creationists]] argue that the [[kangaroo]], the [[snake]], and the [[papaya]] disprove the theory of [[evolution]], while some argue{{who says}} that [[volcano]]es disprove [[global warming]] (both that it exists and that humans are the cause). |
[[Category:Philosophy]] | [[Category:Philosophy]] | ||
Latest revision as of 20:16, March 18, 2008
A disproof, or anti-proof, is a well-reasoned counter-argument against a strongly-asserted claim. Disproofs are possible in the not-so-unlikely case that someone has over-looked an implicit (and false) assumption. For example, creationists argue that the kangaroo, the snake, and the papaya disprove the theory of evolution, while some argue[Who says?] that volcanoes disprove global warming (both that it exists and that humans are the cause).