Game Thread: Werewolf- this time it's real!

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

Therefore, it might well be that the assumption your hypothesis is based on is invalid - and, as you philosophy teacher probably know, a hypothesis based on an invalid assumption is likely to be invalid too.

Haha! Love you for that!

Sadly that's a bit more complicated than that.

A logical deduction from true premises is always valid and true. (how one assures oneself of whether the premises are true is a much more problematic question)

A logical deduction from false premises (including at least one false premise) is logically valid as well, but might be true or false in content. (eg. "Sally is a duck"; "ducks can swim" eg. "Sally can swim" - the deduction is valid and the result is probably true, but one of the premises seems false - or does it? )

But also an illogical deduction can be true in content even if it's logically not valid - even if it rarely is.

But a hypothesis is something you can test reality with by experimenting with it.

An unsuccesful result shows the hypothesis was false.

A succesful result is more open to interpretation. To some it "confirms" the hypothesis, to others it "gives credibility" to it, and to some it just "does not prove the hypothesis false" (falsify it).