Logical Approach to Scientific Theories/Laws

E & I are the hypothesis "all copper conducts electricity", that is E: it is copper, I: it conducts eletricity. (E implies I) is the same hypothesis, "if it is copper then it conducts electricity" is a direct equivalent to "all copper conducts electricity".

The statement could be written logically, with C "is copper", E "conducts electricity"
∀x: C(x) ⇒ E(x)
If your statement means something else, then could you state it in logical format like this.



I don't know why you're so sure your structure is correct. I disagree with how it's set up.

When you're testing
∀x: C(x) ⇒ E(x)

You construct a table of pairs.

x	C(x)	E(x)	C(x) ⇒ E(x)
copper wire	T	T	T
rubber	F	F	T
gold	F	T	T
Item X	T	F	F

To disprove the statement, you would need to find item X.

Yeh, truth table, whatever you'd like to do in its application I suppose, there are also trees and other methods that do the same thing.

That isn't an argument though, that is an expression. I see where I may have caused confusion, this is using a hypothesis (your expression) with test implications "I" to yield a theory/law or not. I didn't think to carefully when I titled this, it should be something along the lines of Scientific theories/laws (maybe i'll try to change it). The intention of what was written is still the same, its funny because I titled it on facebook with theories/laws, but not on this.

Edit: changed title