Editor, Editors, USER, admin, Bureaucrats, Check users, dev, editor, founder, Interface administrators, oversight, Suppressors, Administrators, translator
10,785
edits
Difference between revisions of "Introduction"
no edit summary
| Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
}} Jan;41:e150.</ref> is the issue of verifiability. According to Hempel’s paradox, every example that does not contradict a theory confirms it, which is described as: | }} Jan;41:e150.</ref> is the issue of verifiability. According to Hempel’s paradox, every example that does not contradict a theory confirms it, which is described as: | ||
{{Tooltip|<math>A \Rightarrow B = \lnot A \lor B</math>|Let’s consider the statement: “If a person has TMDs, then they experience orofacial pain.” We can represent this in logic as <math>A \Rightarrow B = \lnot A \lor B</math>, where:<math>A</math> represents "The person has TMDs."<math>B</math> represents "The person experiences orofacial pain." In this case, "If a person has TMDs, then they experience orofacial pain" is equivalent to saying “either the person does not have TMDs (<math>\lnot A</math>), or they experience orofacial pain (<math>B</math>)”. The formula is true in the following cases: If the person does not have TMDs (<math>\lnot A</math>), the statement is true, regardless of orofacial pain. If the person has TMDs (<math>A</math>) and experiences orofacial pain (<math>B</math>), the statement is true. | |||
The statement is false only if the person has TMDs (<math>A</math>) but does not experience orofacial pain (<math>\lnot B</math>), contradicting the implication condition.}} | The statement is false only if the person has TMDs (<math>A</math>) but does not experience orofacial pain (<math>\lnot B</math>), contradicting the implication condition.}} | ||