{
"id": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3986653",
"doi": "10.5281/ZENODO.3986653",
"url": "https://zenodo.org/record/3986653",
"types": {
"ris": "RPRT",
"bibtex": "article",
"citeproc": "article-journal",
"schemaOrg": "ScholarlyArticle",
"resourceType": "Preprint",
"resourceTypeGeneral": "Text"
},
"creators": [
{
"name": "Barukčić, Ilija",
"givenName": "Ilija",
"familyName": "Barukčić",
"affiliation": [
{
"name": "Internist"
}
],
"nameIdentifiers": [
{
"schemeUri": "https://orcid.org",
"nameIdentifier": "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6988-2780",
"nameIdentifierScheme": "ORCID"
}
]
}
],
"titles": [
{
"title": "Modus Inversus – If (Premise is False) Then (Conclusion is False)"
}
],
"publisher": {
"name": "Zenodo"
},
"container": {},
"subjects": [
{
"subject": "Science"
},
{
"subject": "Non-science"
},
{
"subject": "Popper"
},
{
"subject": "Proof methods"
},
{
"subject": "Principle of explosion"
},
{
"subject": "Modus inversus"
},
{
"subject": "Ilija Barukčić"
},
{
"subject": "Barukcic"
},
{
"subject": "Barukčić"
}
],
"contributors": [],
"dates": [
{
"date": "2019-10-27",
"dateType": "Issued"
}
],
"publicationYear": 2019,
"language": "en",
"identifiers": [],
"sizes": [],
"formats": [],
"version": "1",
"rightsList": [
{
"rights": "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International",
"rightsUri": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode",
"schemeUri": "https://spdx.org/licenses/",
"rightsIdentifier": "cc-by-4.0",
"rightsIdentifierScheme": "SPDX"
},
{
"rights": "Open Access",
"rightsUri": "info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"description": "Objective: When theorems or theories are falsified by a formal prove or by observations et cetera, authors respond many times by different and sometimes inappropriate counter-measures. Even if the pressure by which we are forced to believe in different theories although there are already predictively superior rivals to turn to may be very high, a clear scientific methodology should be able to help us to assure the demarcation between science and pseudoscience. Methods: Karl Popper’s (1902-1994) falsificationist methodology is one of the many approaches to the problem of the demarcation between scientific and non-scientific theories but relies as such too much only on modus tollens and is in fact purely one-eyed. Results: Modus inversus is illustrated in more detail in order to identify non-scientific claims as soon as possible and to help authors not to hide to long behind a lot of self-contradictory and sometimes highly abstract, even mathematical stuff. Conclusions: Modus inversus prevents us from accepting seemingly contradictory theorems or rules in science.",
"descriptionType": "Abstract"
}
],
"geoLocations": [],
"fundingReferences": [],
"relatedIdentifiers": [
{
"relationType": "HasVersion",
"relatedIdentifier": "10.5281/zenodo.3986654",
"relatedIdentifierType": "DOI"
}
],
"schemaVersion": "http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-4",
"providerId": "cern",
"clientId": "cern.zenodo",
"agency": "datacite",
"state": "findable"
}