Scientific Definition
If P then Q. Not Q. Therefore not P. The logic behind every falsification test.
Plain-English Definition
If P then Q. Not Q. Therefore not P. The logic behind every falsification test.
Feynman Explanation
Science doesn't prove. It refuses to be refuted yet.
Core Principle
If P then Q. Not Q. Therefore not P. The logic behind every falsification test.
Mechanisms
Pending editorial review.
If P then Q. Not Q. Therefore not P. The logic behind every falsification test.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
How you should structure every product hypothesis test.
Inputs (Triggers)
Pending editorial review.
Outputs (Behaviors)
Pending editorial review.
Behavioral Signature
Science doesn't prove. It refuses to be refuted yet.
Examples
- Foundational in Popperian falsificationism; standard in The Philosopher's Toolkit.
- How you should structure every product hypothesis test.
Pending editorial review.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
- Specify what observation would force you to abandon the claim, in advance.
Measurement Approaches
Pending editorial review.
Evidence
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
The Perverse Incentive Lens™
How this behavior is exploited — and how to redesign around it.
- Specify what observation would force you to abandon the claim, in advance.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Interactive Mini Network
Click any neighbor to re-center the graph and follow the threads of connection.
Knowledge Graph Neighbors
Auto-linked to the rest of the Human Behavior Taxonomy by family, domain, dimension, and shared keywords.
If P then Q. P. Therefore Q. The most basic valid inference move in formal logic.
Whoever makes the positive claim carries the obligation to support it. Absence of disproof isn't proof.
Treating one kind of thing as if it belonged to a different ontological category.
Justified true belief isn't always knowledge — luck can produce true beliefs from defective reasoning.
You can't derive an 'ought' (value claim) from an 'is' (factual claim) without a smuggled premise.
Necessary = required for X. Sufficient = enough on its own for X. Conflating them is a common error.
Assume the opposite of what you want to prove. Derive a contradiction. The opposite must be false.
How will I feel about this in 10 minutes / 10 months / 10 years?
Basics first (health/finances), then depth (mastery/impact), then altruism (widening circle).
A group decides on a course of action that nobody actually wants, because everyone assumes others prefer it.
Inattention or forgetfulness caused by low attention, hyperfocus, or distraction.
Deriving general rules from specific examples; the leap from instance to concept.