Scribd
Upload
268 views1 page

Filchers Handout

The document outlines six principles for evaluating scientific claims: Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. It states that for a claim to be considered true, it must be possible to prove it false. It also provides examples of valid versus invalid logical arguments and outlines the need to consider all available evidence, conduct unbiased evaluations, replicate experiments, and have sufficient evidence to substantiate extraordinary claims.

Uploaded by

Eamon Barkhordarian
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
268 views1 page

Filchers Handout

The document outlines six principles for evaluating scientific claims: Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. It states that for a claim to be considered true, it must be possible to prove it false. It also provides examples of valid versus invalid logical arguments and outlines the need to consider all available evidence, conduct unbiased evaluations, replicate experiments, and have sufficient evidence to substantiate extraordinary claims.

Uploaded by

Eamon Barkhordarian
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

“FiLCHeRS” Handout – Chemistry Honors

• Falsifiability. It must be possible to prove a thing false before it can be accepted as true. An example of a true
claim being falsifiable is given by Lett: the true claim that the life span of human beings is less than 200 years
is falsifiable; it would be falsified if a single human being were to live to be 200 years old.
• Logic. A valid argument will naturally follow from its premises. An example of an invalid argument is given
by Lett: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. This is an invalid argument as soon as
a feline named Xavier who has fleas is found.
• Comprehensiveness. All possible evidence to support any claim must be considered. In other words, all
evidence must be evaluated and not only that evidence which supports the theory being posited.
• Honesty. All evidence must be evaluated without self-deception. It is important to examine all evidence
honestly and at the risk of having our views changed by it.
• Replicability. This states simply that any experiment be replicable.
• Sufficiency. All evidence available must be sufficient to support the truth of a claim. There are stipulations to
this, which include the burden of proof resting with the claimant and extraordinary claims requiring
extraordinary evidence, and evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any
paranormal claim.

“FiLCHeRS” Handout – Chemistry Honors


• Falsifiability. It must be possible to prove a thing false before it can be accepted as true. An example of a true
claim being falsifiable is given by Lett: the true claim that the life span of human beings is less than 200 years
is falsifiable; it would be falsified if a single human being were to live to be 200 years old.
• Logic. A valid argument will naturally follow from its premises. An example of an invalid argument is given
by Lett: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. This is an invalid argument as soon as
a feline named Xavier who has fleas is found.
• Comprehensiveness. All possible evidence to support any claim must be considered. In other words, all
evidence must be evaluated and not only that evidence which supports the theory being posited.
• Honesty. All evidence must be evaluated without self-deception. It is important to examine all evidence
honestly and at the risk of having our views changed by it.
• Replicability. This states simply that any experiment be replicable.
• Sufficiency. All evidence available must be sufficient to support the truth of a claim. There are stipulations to
this, which include the burden of proof resting with the claimant and extraordinary claims requiring
extraordinary evidence, and evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any
paranormal claim.

“FiLCHeRS” Handout – Chemistry Honors


• Falsifiability. It must be possible to prove a thing false before it can be accepted as true. An example of a true
claim being falsifiable is given by Lett: the true claim that the life span of human beings is less than 200 years
is falsifiable; it would be falsified if a single human being were to live to be 200 years old.
• Logic. A valid argument will naturally follow from its premises. An example of an invalid argument is given
by Lett: All dogs have fleas; Xavier has fleas; therefore Xavier is a dog. This is an invalid argument as soon as
a feline named Xavier who has fleas is found.
• Comprehensiveness. All possible evidence to support any claim must be considered. In other words, all
evidence must be evaluated and not only that evidence which supports the theory being posited.
• Honesty. All evidence must be evaluated without self-deception. It is important to examine all evidence
honestly and at the risk of having our views changed by it.
• Replicability. This states simply that any experiment be replicable.
• Sufficiency. All evidence available must be sufficient to support the truth of a claim. There are stipulations to
this, which include the burden of proof resting with the claimant and extraordinary claims requiring
extraordinary evidence, and evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any
paranormal claim.

You might also like