The theory that there are black swans is non-falsifiable and unscientific.

[RandomPoster]

There IS at least one black swan on planet earth. This statement could NEVER be proven false, only proven true when a black swan is found. It is verifiable, except not falsifiable. Therefore, it is NOT scientific since falsification is the demarcation of science.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can never prove ANY claims of non-existence and you can never disprove ANY claims of existence.

Finding a black swan is verification that they exist. You proved black swans exist with verifiable, empirical evidence. Saying you disproved the claim that they don't exist is a pointless circular misdirection that winds up exactly where it started. I'm struggling to see the distinction as anything other than a silly game of switcheroo semantics. In the end, you verified the existence of a black swan. Also, any "confirmation bias" you may or may not have had is irrelevant. If you found a black swan, you found a black swan regardless of your assumed motives.

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 17,000 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 17,000 feet long on planet earth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There IS at least one black swan on planet earth. This statement could NEVER be proven false, only proven true when a black swan is found. It is verifiable, except not falsifiable. Therefore, it is NOT scientific since falsification is the demarcation of science.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can never prove ANY claims of non-existence and you can never disprove ANY claims of existence.

Finding a black swan is verification that they exist. You proved black swans exist with verifiable, empirical evidence. Saying you disproved the claim that they don't exist is a pointless circular misdirection that winds up exactly where it started. I'm struggling to see the distinction as anything other than a silly game of switcheroo semantics. In the end, you verified the existence of a black swan. Also, any "confirmation bias" you may or may not have had is irrelevant. If you found a black swan, you found a black swan regardless of your assumed motives.

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 17,000 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 17,000 feet long on planet earth.

Now, combine a pair of opposites in a tautology :

It is true that either there is NOT at least one water molecules on our planet or there is at least one water molecule.

You then find a water molecule, and you are done: it is true, and can never again be false (much less falsifiable) that there is at least one water melocule on our planet. (Barring complete catastrophe!)

We have passed that point.

We are at no such point with the "a or b is always true", when a is, "there is Not at least one SM ..." .

 

[BULLDOG]

Damn. 17,000 feet long? How many meat balls would it take for that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another "there's no Creator because I'm so smart and awesome" thread

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Another "there's no Creator because I'm so smart and awesome" thread

Not really, it leaves the possibility wide open.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Just to cement the point -

a black swan - Yahoo Image Search Results

 

[RandomPoster]

Just to cement the point -

a black swan - Yahoo Image Search Results

That is merely positive confirmation, that is to say weak positive verification, fueled by confirmation bias. Since the theory isn't falsifiable, it is still by definition non-scientific.


I think I have a solution to this conundrum.

The theory that there are no swans that are not non-black is something that could be falsified. Finding a swan that is not non-black, as opposed to being black, would falsify something instead of verifying something. See, as long as I am falsifying instead of verifying, it is scientific.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just to cement the point -

a black swan - Yahoo Image Search Results

That is merely positive confirmation, that is to say weak positive verification, fueled by confirmation bias. Since the theory isn't falsifiable, it is still by definition non-scientific.


I think I have a solution to this conundrum.

The theory that there are no swans that are not non-black is something that could be falsified. Finding a swan that is not non-black, as opposed to being black, would falsify something instead of verifying something. See, as long as I am falsifying instead of verifying, it is scientific.

But when you try to falsify something, as scientists do, and repeatedly , instead, verify it... Eventually you have to come to acceot it as fact . Like quantum physics.

 

[RandomPoster]

Just to cement the point -

a black swan - Yahoo Image Search Results

That is merely positive confirmation, that is to say weak positive verification, fueled by confirmation bias. Since the theory isn't falsifiable, it is still by definition non-scientific.


I think I have a solution to this conundrum.

The theory that there are no swans that are not non-black is something that could be falsified. Finding a swan that is not non-black, as opposed to being black, would falsify something instead of verifying something. See, as long as I am falsifying instead of verifying, it is scientific.

But when you try to falsify something, as scientists do, and repeatedly , instead, verify it... Eventually you have to come to acceot it as fact . Like quantum physics.

What about when you have made no attempt to falsify anything. You set out to prove that there are black swans and you find one. Is it not scientific because you aren't falsifying, only verifying?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What about when you have made no attempt to falsify anything.

I would call that unscientific, for sure. I think we agree, because it is not the act of falsifying something, but the attempt to falsify something, that is key.

 

[RandomPoster]

What about when you have made no attempt to falsify anything.

I would call that unscientific, for sure. I think we agree, because it is not the act of falsifying something, but the attempt to falsify something, that is key.

So, if someone sets out to prove that black swans exist and finds several of them, he is not following the scientific method and his theory is not sound?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What about when you have made no attempt to falsify anything.

I would call that unscientific, for sure. I think we agree, because it is not the act of falsifying something, but the attempt to falsify something, that is key.

So, if someone sets out to prove that black swans exist and finds several of them, he is not following the scientific method and his theory is not sound?

I would agree he is...and does so without any honest attempt to falsify anything. He is verifying. You would imply this is unscientific.

Stretch it more....say, we search for life elsewhere. Thats not so easy as trying to find a swan. What are we attempting to falsify? Nothing. Is this unscientific?

 

[RandomPoster]

What about when you have made no attempt to falsify anything.

I would call that unscientific, for sure. I think we agree, because it is not the act of falsifying something, but the attempt to falsify something, that is key.

So, if someone sets out to prove that black swans exist and finds several of them, he is not following the scientific method and his theory is not sound?

I would agree he is...and does so without any honest attempt to falsify anything. He is verifying. You would imply this is unscientific.

Stretch it more....say, we search for life elsewhere. Thats not so easy as trying to find a swan. What are we attempting to falsify? Nothing. Is this unscientific?

I do not believe so. I am unconvinced that verification is in itself unscientific.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What about when you have made no attempt to falsify anything.

I would call that unscientific, for sure. I think we agree, because it is not the act of falsifying something, but the attempt to falsify something, that is key.

So, if someone sets out to prove that black swans exist and finds several of them, he is not following the scientific method and his theory is not sound?

I would agree he is...and does so without any honest attempt to falsify anything. He is verifying. You would imply this is unscientific.

Stretch it more....say, we search for life elsewhere. Thats not so easy as trying to find a swan. What are we attempting to falsify? Nothing. Is this unscientific?

I do not believe so. I am unconvinced that verification is in itself unscientific.

Well you should be. Going further, you should also be convinced that accepting a scientific theory as fact is also scientific, after a preponderance of verification alone. Quantum mechanical theories are always a good example of this. Try as we might to prove false the duality and apparent paradoxes, we cannot and, instead, show exactly what our physics predicts.

 

[RandomPoster]

What about when you have made no attempt to falsify anything.

I would call that unscientific, for sure. I think we agree, because it is not the act of falsifying something, but the attempt to falsify something, that is key.

So, if someone sets out to prove that black swans exist and finds several of them, he is not following the scientific method and his theory is not sound?

I would agree he is...and does so without any honest attempt to falsify anything. He is verifying. You would imply this is unscientific.

Stretch it more....say, we search for life elsewhere. Thats not so easy as trying to find a swan. What are we attempting to falsify? Nothing. Is this unscientific?

I do not believe so. I am unconvinced that verification is in itself unscientific.

Well you should be. Going further, you should also be convinced that accepting a scientific theory as fact is also scientific, after a preponderance of verification alone. Quantum mechanical theories are always a good example of this. Try as we might to prove false the duality and apparent paradoxes, we cannot and, instead, show exactly what our physics predicts.

Which has been scientifically proven to a higher degree in your opinion?

The Tasmanian Wolf is extinct. Can never be verified, only falsified. Has never been falsified despite many, many, many attempts to scour remote regions of the continent it lived on.

The Timber Wolf is not extinct. Can never be falsified, only verified. Has actually been verified.

 

[Yarddog]

I would call that unscientific, for sure. I think we agree, because it is not the act of falsifying something, but the attempt to falsify something, that is key.

So, if someone sets out to prove that black swans exist and finds several of them, he is not following the scientific method and his theory is not sound?

I would agree he is...and does so without any honest attempt to falsify anything. He is verifying. You would imply this is unscientific.

Stretch it more....say, we search for life elsewhere. Thats not so easy as trying to find a swan. What are we attempting to falsify? Nothing. Is this unscientific?

I do not believe so. I am unconvinced that verification is in itself unscientific.

Well you should be. Going further, you should also be convinced that accepting a scientific theory as fact is also scientific, after a preponderance of verification alone. Quantum mechanical theories are always a good example of this. Try as we might to prove false the duality and apparent paradoxes, we cannot and, instead, show exactly what our physics predicts.

Which has been scientifically proven to a higher degree in your opinion?

The Tasmanian Wolf is extinct. Can never be verified, only falsified. Has never been falsified despite many, many, many attempts to scour remote regions of the continent it lived on.

The Timber Wolf is not extinct. Can never be falsified, only verified. Has actually been verified.

Of course the wolf can be falsified

 

[RandomPoster]

So, if someone sets out to prove that black swans exist and finds several of them, he is not following the scientific method and his theory is not sound?

I would agree he is...and does so without any honest attempt to falsify anything. He is verifying. You would imply this is unscientific.

Stretch it more....say, we search for life elsewhere. Thats not so easy as trying to find a swan. What are we attempting to falsify? Nothing. Is this unscientific?

I do not believe so. I am unconvinced that verification is in itself unscientific.

Well you should be. Going further, you should also be convinced that accepting a scientific theory as fact is also scientific, after a preponderance of verification alone. Quantum mechanical theories are always a good example of this. Try as we might to prove false the duality and apparent paradoxes, we cannot and, instead, show exactly what our physics predicts.

Which has been scientifically proven to a higher degree in your opinion?

The Tasmanian Wolf is extinct. Can never be verified, only falsified. Has never been falsified despite many, many, many attempts to scour remote regions of the continent it lived on.

The Timber Wolf is not extinct. Can never be falsified, only verified. Has actually been verified.

Of course the wolf can be falsified

 

[RandomPoster]

There is simply something so comforting about the theory that it's not about how much verification (evidence) I have in support of my theory, it's about how much evidence you can present to refute it (falsification). It's almost like in its most pure form it allows me to shift the burden of proof and practice my "critical thinking" skills to defend my theory and try to keep you forever on the defensive instead of needing actual actual evidence to support it.

Put it this way. What does the shady salesman always say? "So, can you tell me why you shouldn't buy..."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I would call that unscientific, for sure. I think we agree, because it is not the act of falsifying something, but the attempt to falsify something, that is key.

So, if someone sets out to prove that black swans exist and finds several of them, he is not following the scientific method and his theory is not sound?

I would agree he is...and does so without any honest attempt to falsify anything. He is verifying. You would imply this is unscientific.

Stretch it more....say, we search for life elsewhere. Thats not so easy as trying to find a swan. What are we attempting to falsify? Nothing. Is this unscientific?

I do not believe so. I am unconvinced that verification is in itself unscientific.

Well you should be. Going further, you should also be convinced that accepting a scientific theory as fact is also scientific, after a preponderance of verification alone. Quantum mechanical theories are always a good example of this. Try as we might to prove false the duality and apparent paradoxes, we cannot and, instead, show exactly what our physics predicts.

Which has been scientifically proven to a higher degree in your opinion?

The Tasmanian Wolf is extinct. Can never be verified, only falsified. Has never been falsified despite many, many, many attempts to scour remote regions of the continent it lived on.

The Timber Wolf is not extinct. Can never be falsified, only verified. Has actually been verified.

You tell me. Make your point.

 

[RandomPoster]

So, if someone sets out to prove that black swans exist and finds several of them, he is not following the scientific method and his theory is not sound?

I would agree he is...and does so without any honest attempt to falsify anything. He is verifying. You would imply this is unscientific.

Stretch it more....say, we search for life elsewhere. Thats not so easy as trying to find a swan. What are we attempting to falsify? Nothing. Is this unscientific?

I do not believe so. I am unconvinced that verification is in itself unscientific.

Well you should be. Going further, you should also be convinced that accepting a scientific theory as fact is also scientific, after a preponderance of verification alone. Quantum mechanical theories are always a good example of this. Try as we might to prove false the duality and apparent paradoxes, we cannot and, instead, show exactly what our physics predicts.

Which has been scientifically proven to a higher degree in your opinion?

The Tasmanian Wolf is extinct. Can never be verified, only falsified. Has never been falsified despite many, many, many attempts to scour remote regions of the continent it lived on.

The Timber Wolf is not extinct. Can never be falsified, only verified. Has actually been verified.

You tell me. Make your point.

LOL. I'm just asking your opinion as to which has been proven to a higher degree and why you would believe it to be so?

There is no wrong answer.