The claim that there are black swans is non-falsifiable, therefore not scientific.

Moderate71 said:

"A Non-falsifiable Statement is something that cannot be verified"

Wrong. A non-falsifiable statement is something that can not be falsified. Hence the term non-falsifiable. A statement that can not be verified is actually called... non-verifiable.

"The three examples that you just gave are actually falsifiable statements"

Wrong again. They are only verifiable.

Try to prove these statements false:

Black Swans exist on earth.
Water exists on earth.
There exists on earth at least one living, breathing Tyrannosaurus Rex.

How would you falsify those statements?

Click to expand...

https://courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/006/index.html

If there were no evidence for the existence of black swans (or water) it would be a Non-falsifiable Statement.

As I explained Tyrannosaurus's are extinct. The method to deduce their extinction is falsifiable evidence of their non-existence. The Earth is a finite space and something the size of a Tyrannosaurus would be easily found.



How would you verify their opposite?

Black Swans do not exist on earth.
Water does not exist on earth.
There does not exist on earth at least one living, breathing Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Black Swans do exist. This could never have been proven false, only proven true when a black swan is found. Even before black swans were found, it never was falsifiable, only verifiable.
Black Swans do not exist. This could never have been proven true, only proven false when a black swan is found. Even before black swans were found, it never was verifiable, only falsifiable.

In summation,

"There are black swans" is no more falsifiable than "There are no black swans" is verifiable.[/QUOTE]

If you find one black swan the statement that they do not exist was falsified. Something can be falsified and verified. Black swans were verified to exist so therefor it falsified their non existence.

FreedomFromAll said:

https://courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/006/index.html

If there were no evidence for the existence of black swans (or water) it would be a Non-falsifiable Statement.

Click to expand...

Try to falsify any of these theories. They are all verifiable, except none are falsifiable at all.

There IS at least one water molecule on planet earth.
There IS at least one living, breathing Tyrannosaurus Rex on planet earth.
There IS at least one flying spaghetti monster over 18,000 feet long on planet earth.

Try to verify their opposites. They are all falsifiable, except none are verifiable at all.

There IS NOT at least one water molecule on planet earth.
There IS NOT at least one living, breathing Tyrannosaurus Rex on planet earth.
There IS NOT at least one flying spaghetti monster over 18,000 feet long on planet earth.

Saying "There are no X." is not verifiable is no more significant than saying "There are X." is not falsifiable.

Saying that you have failed to falsify that something does not exist is exactly the same as saying you have failed to verify that it does exist.

We have failed to falsify the claim that the Tasmanian Wolf does not exist.

We have failed to verify the claim that the Tasmanian Wolf does exist.

The first is no more scientific than the second.

Moderate71 said:

Try to falsify any of these theories. They are all verifiable, except none are falsifiable at all.

There IS at least one water molecule on planet earth.
There IS at least one living, breathing Tyrannosaurus Rex on planet earth.
There IS at least one flying spaghetti monster over 18,000 feet long on planet earth.

Try to verify their opposites. They are all falsifiable, except none are verifiable at all.

There IS NOT at least one water molecule on planet earth.
There IS NOT at least one living, breathing Tyrannosaurus Rex on planet earth.
There IS NOT at least one flying spaghetti monster over 18,000 feet long on planet earth.

Saying "There are no X." is not verifiable is no more significant than saying "There are X." is not falsifiable.

Saying that you have failed to falsify that something does not exist is exactly the same as saying you have failed to verify that it does exist.

We have failed to falsify the claim that the Tasmanian Wolf does not exist.

We have failed to verify the claim that the Tasmanian Wolf does exist.

The first is no more scientific than the second.

Click to expand...

*face palm* I just explained this to you. I mean seriously, did you read the damn link that I provided you? It was an educational explanation of why you are out in left field. I explained your mistakes the link explains your mistakes, everyone but you understands what a falsifiable statement and what a non-falsifiable statement is. Until you turn off the dogma you will not learn the truth of the mater. BTW my explanation is verifiable and you could test its falsifiability. But you have not proved it wrong you have only showed your ignorance on the subject. You just keep repeating the same dogma will completely ignoring anyone elses argument and even ignoring known facts than can be shown in text books the world over. Until you go and learn these basic concepts you will forever misunderstand them as you are doing now.

Moderate71 said:

You're missing my point.

Claim: There is at least one water molecule on planet earth. This can never be falsified, only verified. Therefore, it is not scientific.

No matter how many water molecules you find, you can never prove it scientifically.

Click to expand...

You are correct. I have been baffled by the increasing popularity of an ideology that would have never been seriously considered a viable option in the US just 20 years ago, so my post veered slightly off course. Anyway, as far as black swans are concerned, do we know for sure that the black swans shown in photos aren't essentially unnatural, man-made hybrids, that were selectively bred to be black, or can it be proven that it's a naturally occuring trait. How does that factor into the argument?

You said:

"everyone but you understands what a falsifiable statement and what a non-falsifiable statement is."

You also said:

"A Non-falsifiable Statement is something that cannot be verified"

A non-falsifiable statement is not one that can not be verified. A non-falsifiable statement is a statement that can not be falsified. A statement that can not be verified is called non-verifiable.

ModerationNow! said:

You are correct. I have been baffled by the increasing popularity of an ideology that would have never been seriously considered a viable option in the US just 20 years ago, so my post veered slightly off course. Anyway, as far as black swans are concerned, do we know for sure that the black swans shown in photos aren't essentially unnatural, man-made hybrids, that were selectively bred to be black, or can it be proven that it's a naturally occuring trait. How does that factor into the argument?

Click to expand...

What ideology are you speaking of? As far as the blacks swans are concerned, it doesn't matter if they were artificially bred as long as that is their actual color. Now, if they were spray painted black, that would be different.

Do you agree that the following statements are logically equivalent?

1. We have falsified the claim that there are no black swans.

2. We have verified the claim that there are black swans.

Do you believe the first is in any way more meaningful than the second?

Moderate71 said:

What ideology are you speaking of? As far as the blacks swans are concerned, it doesn't matter if they were artificially bred as long as that is their actual color. Now, if they were spray painted black, that would be different.

Do you agree that the following statements are logically equivalent?

1. We have falsified the claim that there are no black swans.

2. We have verified the claim that there are black swans.

Do you believe the first is in any way more meaningful than the second?

Click to expand...

No. They mean exactly the same thing. Oh, and socialism.

Moderate71 said:

What ideology are you speaking of? As far as the blacks swans are concerned, it doesn't matter if they were artificially bred as long as that is their actual color. Now, if they were spray painted black, that would be different.

Do you agree that the following statements are logically equivalent?

1. We have falsified the claim that there are no black swans.

2. We have verified the claim that there are black swans.

Do you believe the first is in any way more meaningful than the second?

Click to expand...

I don't know what the Confucius level talk going on here is. A black swan exists, and is a proud symbol for Australia. It sounds like you're asking a cup half full, or half empty question. Or getting weird with the terminology of Black swan. (An event or occurrence that deviates beyond what is normally expected of a situation, and that would be extremely difficult to predict).