from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- n. The act of refuting or disproving.
- n. Evidence that refutes or disproves.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- n. A refutation.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- n. A proving to be false or erroneous; confutation; refutation.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. Proof to the contrary; confutation; refutation: as, to offer evidence in disproof of an allegation.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- n. any evidence that helps to establish the falsity of something
- n. the act of determining that something is false
Mathematics is not falsifiable by empirical evidence it is falsiable by the possibility of mathematical disproof, which is not the same thing.
Zeno's method; for _dissolvere_ should refer to Zeno's method of disproof, which is not properly called dilemma.
I wonder what you make of Columbus '"disproof" of the flat earth theory.
The letter shows it is on an irrelevant track with its first "disproof," in which it attacks a "cover letter and associated materials provided to TV stations" rather than any assertion actually made in one of the SBVT ads.
That is true even if such dialogue results in greater knowledge of each other's traditions and does not aim as it still does too often at proof, disproof, or proselytism.
Actually it's not Palin or any of the disproof that makes me question, it's merely the fact that most climatologist or scientist that hold global warming (GW) to be a fact, do so unquestioningly and with potentially bad data (see climate-gate).
Conway conjectured that no initially finite population could grow in number without limit and offered fifty dollars for the first proof or disproof.
Referencing the weather in Virginia or Vancouver as disproof or proof of climate change is inappropriate scientifically.
Instead, the important idea about the method is that any statement, to be scientific, must be open to disproof, and a way of knowing how to disprove it exists.
It serves us well with politics and legal affairs, but falls down badly when it comes to science because its basic processes, which rely heavily on internal criticism and disproof, are so widely misunderstood.