"Some" observation "might" show it to be false? Sounds a bit weak.

What if it's one study that shows a hypothesis could be wrong? Does that make it falsified, or does the study need to be replicated first, and any correlations vs causations worked out?

It's not right because the indefinite article should be 'a' not 'an', given that 'hypothesis' does not begin with a vowel.

But, uh, otherwise, seems right.

ah, fair point.

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".

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

This is not a proper rendition. Because of the subjective nature of "observation", there are limitations to what can be observed. There are things which are beyond the capacity of human beings to observe. We might still say that there is truth or falsity relating to these things, despite the fact that they cannot be observed.

The op speaks of the "falsifiability" of a hypothesis, not whether the hypothesis is true or false. And, like "observation", "falsifiable" refers to a human capacity. So it avoids the issue of hypotheses which might be true or false which cannot be observed as such, by speaking not of whether the theory is false, but whether the theory is falsifiable, and this is limited to the capacities of human beings to falsify.

I think you misunderstood. I'm saying to add the "if it is false" to the definition in the OP: "An hypothesis is falsifiable if, if it is false, some observation might show it to be false". Because people seem to be objecting to the definition in the OP on the grounds that "some observation might show it to be false" is only true of hypotheses that are actually false, and so rules out hypotheses that are true from being falsifiable.

All of that sounds like just someone has reading comprehension problems, to me, so I think maybe explicitly adding the "if it is false" part could clear things up for them.

Are hypotheses falsifiable in the first place?

Observation...

or...

...contradicts with, or stands in direct opposition to some other bit of knowledge(statement) that has been previously verified?

:brow:

It's not saying that a single observation would prove it false, it is saying that it has the quality of being able to be countered by observations. One can observe things that act as counter-evidence.

That's complicated...

H’ represents a consonant sound, so we would expect ‘a hypothesis’, and that is what many say and write. However, where the stress in a word beginning with a sounded /h/ is on the second or subsequent syllable, some native speakers precede the word with ‘an’ rather than ‘a’, so you will also see and hear ‘an hypothesis’. But if you say and write ‘a hypothesis’, you will not be wrong.

How else would you summarise falsifiability in ten words or less? — Banno

It works until it doesn't anymore. ;-)

An hypothesis is falsifiable if some observation might show it to be false.

An hypothesis is falsifiable if counterevidence relevent to such an hypothesis could be observed.

14 words, sigh.

I grew up with a friend who's mother would pronounce "white" as "h-wite". Suffice it to say that I'm a strong believer in the use of "a" preceding a word beginning with a silent "h".

Not to pull the thread to far off track, the 'h' isn't silent, like it is in 'honor', but unstressed. I definitely use an before words with silent a silent h, but I even use it here where I do pronounce the h, but much. A hy po...it feels like I am stuttering. An hypothesis flows for me. Not saying a before it is wrong, however.

so....

Think of this as what appears if you were reading an article and came across "...falsifiability..." in an article, and you selected it and clicked on "Look up"... a short text to remind some folk and inform others, with more information available as needed...

Indeed, that is what happens if your browser is accessing Wikipedia.

So if you want more detail, and the answer to your questions, you read the rest of the article.

so "An 'ypothesis" it is!

Fair enough.

Oh, I say that 'h', I breathe it, man.

How else would you summarise falsifiability in ten words or less? — Banno

If it's wrong, I might notice.

6 words

Ah. Silly ache.

I did some research and - of course - "a" is a now accepted American mispronunciation.

"an" it is.

The way I learned it, when I was leaning English, is that 'an' is correct, in British English, before a word beginning with 'h', if the accent lies on any syllable other than the first.

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.

It is 11 words, but I think the word 'might' opens all sorts of doors.

How about looking at this from the viewpoint of necessary and contingent truths?

If a theory/proposition is necessarily true then it is necessarily unfalsifiable. On the other hand a theory/proposition that is contingently true, it is necessarily falsifiable.

Since we're after necessary truths we need to identify contingent truths and the only method available is to falsify theories/propositions under consideration because that's the only available method to discriminate the two.

A contingent truth would be one that is true by virtue of the pecularities of the circumstances that surround it e.g. moving objects eventually come to rest (on earth). However, the necessary truth is that moving objects will continue to move without an opposing force. The method to identify which is which is to falsify one of them, as was done by scientists.

Is there another way to tell apart necessary truths and contingent truths? Since both can be confirmed, there's only one avenue open to us viz. falsify.

An hypothesis is falsifiable when contradicting observations or verified statements.

Interesting. Are there examples where it doesn't?

That does not look to me to be even a sentence.

Ten words or less?

Falsifiable hypotheses are refutable by experiments.

How else would you summarise falsifiability in ten words or less?

Hypothesis is falsifiable if predicts observation that will either prove it true or false.

There has to be explicit prediction, if not even suggestion of viable experimental setup. I assumed possibility of 'proving false' is the same as 'proving true', so I guess I'm saying falsifiability is the same thing as testability.

Presumably, it would mean that you don't use 'an' with one-syllable words, like 'house'.