Nothing exists until verified and all theories are falsified until proven true.

[RandomPoster]

If I say there are no unicorns, my argument, although unverifiable, is verified by default until someone finds a unicorn. The burden of proof is on anyone who says they do exist. If I say trees don't exist, I am only wrong because they have already been verified to exist. We should always lean towards something not existing until its existence can be verified.

If I say some unverified species exists, my theory is falsified the second it comes out of my mouth. Neither you, nor anyone else has to do anything to falsify it. I have to verify my theory to be true by finding an example of the species. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming existence of anything as of yet unverified to exist.

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If I say there are no unicorns, my argument, although unverifiable, is verified by default until someone finds a unicorn. The burden of proof is on anyone who says they do exist. If I say trees don't exist, I am only wrong because they have already been verified to exist. We should always lean towards something not existing until its existence can be verified.

If I say some unverified species exists, my theory is falsified the second it comes out of my mouth. Neither you, nor anyone else has to do anything to falsify it. I have to verify my theory to be true by finding an example of the species. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming existence of anything as of yet unverified to exist.

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

What are trees?

.

 

[night_son]

If I say there are no unicorns, my argument, although unverifiable, is verified by default until someone finds a unicorn. The burden of proof is on anyone who says they do exist. If I say trees don't exist, I am only wrong because they have already been verified to exist. We should always lean towards something not existing until its existence can be verified.

If I say some unverified species exists, my theory is falsified the second it comes out of my mouth. Neither you, nor anyone else has to do anything to falsify it. I have to verify my theory to be true by finding an example of the species. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming existence of anything as of yet unverified to exist.

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

So how's the weather over there in your own Private Idaho? My theory is . . .

. . . that's my theory: "my theory is . . . "

Feel free to disprove it.

 

[dblack]

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

Prove it.

 

[RandomPoster]

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

Prove it.

If I say there are no unicorns, my argument, although unverifiable, is verified by default until someone finds a unicorn. The burden of proof is on anyone who says they do exist. If I say trees don't exist, I am only wrong because they have already been verified to exist. We should always lean towards something not existing until its existence can be verified.

If I say some unverified species exists, my theory is falsified the second it comes out of my mouth. Neither you, nor anyone else has to do anything to falsify it. I have to verify my theory to be true by finding an example of the species. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming existence of anything as of yet unverified to exist.

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

What are trees?

.

Trees exist because I have seen them and their existence has been verified. If someone claims the moon exists, you can prove them wrong for the briefest of moments simply by saying "No it doesn't.". They are wrong until they drag you outside, show you the moon and say "HA! I told you so!" and then you are wrong.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Gravity existed long before it was verified. E=mc squared existed before Einstein verified it.
Membranes, strings, dimensions all exist and are waiting verification.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

Prove it.

If I say there are no unicorns, my argument, although unverifiable, is verified by default until someone finds a unicorn. The burden of proof is on anyone who says they do exist. If I say trees don't exist, I am only wrong because they have already been verified to exist. We should always lean towards something not existing until its existence can be verified.

If I say some unverified species exists, my theory is falsified the second it comes out of my mouth. Neither you, nor anyone else has to do anything to falsify it. I have to verify my theory to be true by finding an example of the species. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming existence of anything as of yet unverified to exist.

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

What are trees?

.

Trees exist because I have seen them and their existence has been verified. If someone claims the moon exists, you can prove them wrong for the briefest of moments simply by saying "No it doesn't.". They are wrong until they drag you outside, show you the moon and say "HA! I told you so!" and then you are wrong.

No one verfied you ever existed .


.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

If I say there are no unicorns, my argument, although unverifiable, is verified by default until someone finds a unicorn. The burden of proof is on anyone who says they do exist. If I say trees don't exist, I am only wrong because they have already been verified to exist. We should always lean towards something not existing until its existence can be verified.

If I say some unverified species exists, my theory is falsified the second it comes out of my mouth. Neither you, nor anyone else has to do anything to falsify it. I have to verify my theory to be true by finding an example of the species. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming existence of anything as of yet unverified to exist.

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

Any thing can be verified if it is of personal experience....

 

[dblack]

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

Prove it.

If I say there are no unicorns, my argument, although unverifiable, is verified by default until someone finds a unicorn. The burden of proof is on anyone who says they do exist. If I say trees don't exist, I am only wrong because they have already been verified to exist. We should always lean towards something not existing until its existence can be verified.

If I say some unverified species exists, my theory is falsified the second it comes out of my mouth. Neither you, nor anyone else has to do anything to falsify it. I have to verify my theory to be true by finding an example of the species. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming existence of anything as of yet unverified to exist.

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

What are trees?

.

Trees exist because I have seen them and their existence has been verified. If someone claims the moon exists, you can prove them wrong for the briefest of moments simply by saying "No it doesn't.". They are wrong until they drag you outside, show you the moon and say "HA! I told you so!" and then you are wrong.

No one verfied you ever existed .


.

Bullshit.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If I say there are no unicorns, my argument, although unverifiable, is verified by default until someone finds a unicorn. The burden of proof is on anyone who says they do exist. If I say trees don't exist, I am only wrong because they have already been verified to exist. We should always lean towards something not existing until its existence can be verified.

If I say some unverified species exists, my theory is falsified the second it comes out of my mouth. Neither you, nor anyone else has to do anything to falsify it. I have to verify my theory to be true by finding an example of the species. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming existence of anything as of yet unverified to exist.

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

Any thing can be verified if it is of personal experience....

I don't think we exist

 

[Wyatt earp]

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

Prove it.

If I say there are no unicorns, my argument, although unverifiable, is verified by default until someone finds a unicorn. The burden of proof is on anyone who says they do exist. If I say trees don't exist, I am only wrong because they have already been verified to exist. We should always lean towards something not existing until its existence can be verified.

If I say some unverified species exists, my theory is falsified the second it comes out of my mouth. Neither you, nor anyone else has to do anything to falsify it. I have to verify my theory to be true by finding an example of the species. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming existence of anything as of yet unverified to exist.

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

What are trees?

.

Trees exist because I have seen them and their existence has been verified. If someone claims the moon exists, you can prove them wrong for the briefest of moments simply by saying "No it doesn't.". They are wrong until they drag you outside, show you the moon and say "HA! I told you so!" and then you are wrong.

No one verfied you ever existed .


.

Bullshit.

How do you know?


.

 

[dblack]

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

Prove it.

If I say there are no unicorns, my argument, although unverifiable, is verified by default until someone finds a unicorn. The burden of proof is on anyone who says they do exist. If I say trees don't exist, I am only wrong because they have already been verified to exist. We should always lean towards something not existing until its existence can be verified.

If I say some unverified species exists, my theory is falsified the second it comes out of my mouth. Neither you, nor anyone else has to do anything to falsify it. I have to verify my theory to be true by finding an example of the species. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming existence of anything as of yet unverified to exist.

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

What are trees?

.

Trees exist because I have seen them and their existence has been verified. If someone claims the moon exists, you can prove them wrong for the briefest of moments simply by saying "No it doesn't.". They are wrong until they drag you outside, show you the moon and say "HA! I told you so!" and then you are wrong.

No one verfied you ever existed .


.

Bullshit.

How do you know?


.

Don't make me whip out the epistemology on your ass.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Prove it.

What are trees?

.

Trees exist because I have seen them and their existence has been verified. If someone claims the moon exists, you can prove them wrong for the briefest of moments simply by saying "No it doesn't.". They are wrong until they drag you outside, show you the moon and say "HA! I told you so!" and then you are wrong.

No one verfied you ever existed .


.

Bullshit.

How do you know?


.

Don't make me whip out the epistemology on your ass.

It's the CDZ...or is it?



.

 

[dblack]

Trees exist because I have seen them and their existence has been verified. If someone claims the moon exists, you can prove them wrong for the briefest of moments simply by saying "No it doesn't.". They are wrong until they drag you outside, show you the moon and say "HA! I told you so!" and then you are wrong.

No one verfied you ever existed .


.

Bullshit.

How do you know?


.

Don't make me whip out the epistemology on your ass.

It's the CDZ...or is it?



.

My words are carefully chosen and edited for content. Any resemblance to foul language is in the mind of the reader.

 

[RandomPoster]

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

Prove it.

If I say there are no unicorns, my argument, although unverifiable, is verified by default until someone finds a unicorn. The burden of proof is on anyone who says they do exist. If I say trees don't exist, I am only wrong because they have already been verified to exist. We should always lean towards something not existing until its existence can be verified.

If I say some unverified species exists, my theory is falsified the second it comes out of my mouth. Neither you, nor anyone else has to do anything to falsify it. I have to verify my theory to be true by finding an example of the species. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming existence of anything as of yet unverified to exist.

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

What are trees?

.

Trees exist because I have seen them and their existence has been verified. If someone claims the moon exists, you can prove them wrong for the briefest of moments simply by saying "No it doesn't.". They are wrong until they drag you outside, show you the moon and say "HA! I told you so!" and then you are wrong.

No one verfied you ever existed .


.

From your point of view, my existence was verified when you read my post. Before that, I didn't exist. Your existence was verified when I read your post. You didn't exist before that.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

Prove it.

If I say there are no unicorns, my argument, although unverifiable, is verified by default until someone finds a unicorn. The burden of proof is on anyone who says they do exist. If I say trees don't exist, I am only wrong because they have already been verified to exist. We should always lean towards something not existing until its existence can be verified.

If I say some unverified species exists, my theory is falsified the second it comes out of my mouth. Neither you, nor anyone else has to do anything to falsify it. I have to verify my theory to be true by finding an example of the species. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming existence of anything as of yet unverified to exist.

Every explorer is wrong until he verifies the existence of the place he claims exists. Every inventor is wrong until he actually invents his product. There are never any exceptions to this. Ever.

What are trees?

.

Trees exist because I have seen them and their existence has been verified. If someone claims the moon exists, you can prove them wrong for the briefest of moments simply by saying "No it doesn't.". They are wrong until they drag you outside, show you the moon and say "HA! I told you so!" and then you are wrong.

No one verfied you ever existed .


.

From your point of view, my existence was verified when you read my post. Before that, I didn't exist. Your existence was verified when I read your post. You didn't exist before that.

This is just random words being posted so nothing is verified .


.

 

[cnm]

Nothing exists until verified and all theories are falsified until proven true

I imagine this applies to the theory you've just advanced.

So what was your point?

 

[gtopa1]

I was under the impression that Karl Popper had dealt with that sort of thing.

Thus, in Popper’s words, science requires testability: “If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted.” This means a good theory must have an element of risk to it. It must be able to be proven wrong under stated conditions.

Karl Popper on The Line Between Science and Pseudoscience

Greg

 

[Picaro]

Gravity existed long before it was verified. E=mc squared existed before Einstein verified it.
Membranes, strings, dimensions all exist and are waiting verification.

Bertrand Russell covered a priori knowledge in his fairly excellent book The Problems of Philisophy. Alfred Ayer's Language, Truth, and Logic is even better, and both are free at archive.org.

 

[Picaro]

What are trees?

.

You mean like in the plural sense?

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 .... and so on, as many as you want.