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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

The existential statement is always more well proven than the universal statewent, in strictest terms. But, in scientific terms, either can be accepted as fact.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Here are at least 2 Black swans.