What is another word for testable?

Pronunciation: [tˈɛstəbə͡l] (IPA)

When it comes to finding the right word to describe something that can be tested, there are many synonyms you can use instead of the word "testable". For example, words like "verifiable", "provable", and "falsifiable" all describe something that can be tested. Other synonyms include "confirmable", "demonstrable", and "checkable", all of which suggest that a hypothesis or theory can be tested and proven through experimentation or observation. Additionally, words like "empirical", "observational", and "experimental" describe methods that can be used to test a particular idea or claim. Ultimately, the key to finding the right synonym is to consider the context and the specific meaning you want to convey.

What are the paraphrases for Testable?

Paraphrases are restatements of text or speech using different words and phrasing to convey the same meaning.
Paraphrases are highlighted according to their relevancy:
- highest relevancy
- medium relevancy
- lowest relevancy

What are the hypernyms for Testable?

A hypernym is a word with a broad meaning that encompasses more specific words called hyponyms.

What are the opposite words for testable?

Testable is an adjective that describes something that can be subjected to testing or experimental verification, such as a hypothesis or theory. The antonym of testable is untestable, which refers to a proposition or concept that cannot be validated or assessed through experimentation or empirical evidence. Other antonyms of testable could include uncertain, unfalsifiable, hypothetical, speculative, unprovable, and immeasurable. These words imply the lack of evidence or means to prove or disprove a statement, concept, or idea. While testable denotes the ability to be tested and evaluated, its antonyms, on the other hand, characterize something that cannot be examined, understood or proven definitively.

What are the antonyms for Testable?

Famous quotes with Testable

  • The problem with intelligent design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet--a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school's curriculum.
    George F. Will
  • I have grown accustomed to the disrespect expressed by some of the participants for their colleagues in the other disciplines. "Why, Dan," ask the people in artificial intelligence, "do you waste your time conferring with those neuroscientists? They wave their hands about 'information processing' and worry about it happens, and which neurotransmitters are involved, but they haven't a clue about the computational requirements of higher cognitive functions." "Why," ask the neuroscientists, "do you waste your time on the fantasies of artificial intelligence? They just invent whatever machinery they want, and say unpardonably ignorant things about the brain." The cognitive psychologists, meanwhile, are accused of concocting models with biological plausibility proven computational powers; the anthropologists wouldn't know a model if they saw one, and the philosophers, as we all know, just take in each other's laundry, warning about confusions they themselves have created, in an arena bereft of both data and empirically testable theories. With so many idiots working on the problem, no wonder consciousness is still a mystery. All these charges are true, and more besides, but I have yet to encounter any idiots. Mostly the theorists I have drawn from strike me as very smart people – even brilliant people, with the arrogance and impatience that often comes with brilliance – but with limited perspectives and agendas, trying to make progress on the hard problems by taking whatever shortcuts they can see, while deploring other people's shortcuts. No one can keep all the problems and details clear, including me, and everyone has to mumble, guess and handwave about large parts of the problem.
    Daniel Dennett
  • It has been fashionable in the twentieth century not only to debunk myth, … but to pretend that that reasonable and educated people could avoid the embarrassment of religion and the risk of metaphysics by sticking close to demonstrable facts and testable hypotheses. However, in the course of reducing our beliefs and hopes to certainties and proofs, we impoverished and deluded ourselves. The modern anti-myth reduced human life to a story without a point, a tale told by an idiot, a process without a purpose, a journey without a goal, an affair without a climax (Godot never comes), an accidental collision of mindless atoms. … We have hardly noticed that economics, technology and politics have become the new myth and metaphysic. We haven’t avoided myth and metaphysics, only created demeaning ones.
    Sam Keen
  • Nothing carries so much authority today as science, but there is actually no such thing as ‘the scientific world-view’. Science is a method of inquiry, not a view of the world. Knowledge is growing at accelerating speed; but no advance in science will tell us whether materialism is true or false, or whether humans possess free will. The belief that the world is composed of matter is metaphysical speculation, not a testable theory. Science may succeed in explaining events in terms of causes and effects. In some accounts it may be able to formulate laws of nature. But what does it mean for something to cause something else and what is a law of nature? These are questions for philosophy or religion, not for science.
    John Gray (philosopher)
  • Of the three great skeptics I interviewed, Popper was the first to make his mark. His philosophy stemmed from his effort to distinguish pseudoscience, such as Marxism or astrology or Freudian psychology, from genuine science, such as Einstein's theory of relativity. The latter, Popper decided, was testable; it made predictions about the world that could be empirically checked. The logical positivists had said as much. But Popper denied the positivist assertion that scientists can a theory through induction, or repeated empirical tests or observations. One never knows if one's observations have been sufficient; the next observation might contradict all that preceded it. Observations can never prove a theory but can only disprove, or falsify it. Popper often bragged that he had "killed" logical positivism with this argument.
    John Horgan (journalist)

Word of the Day

chucker-out, bouncer.