# User:Tsinoyboi

See my Contributions

Some pages I frequently or recently visited either in editing or discussion:

I try my best to follow these policies or check if others do:

Mostly I've been looking at if articles meet the policies. I have my opinions but i guess there isn't much space for that. It may be important to understand even my own bias in order to attain the neutral view, so maybe i could share them on this page.

If you feel any information on this page needs to be disputed, go ahead and say something on my discussion. This is where I'm coming from and I'm open minded

## Logic

Here are some things I know about logic and tried to explain in English

### Judy goes to jail

Assume this statement is true: "If Jody doesn't pay her ticket, she will go to jail." Which other statement MUST be true?

• A) If Jody pays her ticket, she won't go to jail.
• B) If Jody goes to jail, she didn't pay her ticket.
• C) If Jody doesn't go to jail, she paid her ticket.

### Logic in terms of science

When falsifying an explanation, logic follows:

1. If Explanation, then Prediction
2. Prediction is false
Therefore,
3. Explanation is false

This follows modus tollens:

$h\to p\land\neg p\vdash \neg h$

When supporting an explanation, logic follows:

1. If Explanation, then Prediction
2. Prediction is true
Therefore,
3. Explanation is true

This is a fallacy:

$h\to p\land\neg p\vdash \neg h$

No explanation can escape this fallacy.

Although we can't actually tell if something is true, the key to scientific reasoning is that when something falsifiable, then we can observe that it's wrong. This way tests can be conducted to see which theory passes.

Pseudosciences on the other hand tend to not be falsifiable. When something isn't falsifiable, there's no way to tell whether it's true or false.

There is, however, the possibility that any law or theory could be wrong, but laws and theories have been tested many times and non-falsifiable ideas are never really tested to begin with.

Instead of keeping with the fallacy, science takes on new [[explanation[[s by disproving the old:

1. If old Explanation, then old Prediction
2. If new Explanation, then new Prediction
3. old Prediction is false
3. new Prediction is true
Therefore,
3. new Explanation has supported

## Random stuff

all for one and one $\forall$