I've asked the people who have made these statements to explain why they're true but I don't get any satisfactory answers. Can someone explain why unfalsifiability is required for something to be true or knowable? — Hallucinogen

To be clear, falsifiable means, "I can imagine a situation in which something is false."

Let me give you an example.

John is a human. If John were a snail, he would not be a human.

Here is something unfalsifiable.

A unicorn is a magical creature that cannot be sensed in any way.

What state of reality could falsify the unicorn?

Is there a scenario we could imagine where the unicorn does not exist? "No, that's impossible because we can't sense it. We just know it exists." Or if the unicorn did not exist, there would be no state change elsewhere. There is no situation that is different in which the unicorn exists, and not.

Now more specific.

"The loch ness monster exists."
But no one has ever recorded it. "It doesn't matter, its very stealthy so that's why we haven't found it yet."

Is there any observation or research that we could do where we don't find the loch ness monster where we could claim it doesn't exist? "No". Thus the loch ness monster is not falsifiable. It is a belief system that asserts its truth as a matter of necessity, and no amount of evidence or thought could negate its assertion of existence.

To be clear, falsifiable means, "I can imagine a situation in which something is false." — Philosophim

You have to make it clear that the "situation" is empirical. Imagining that a contradiction appear in front of you doesn't work because a contradiction undermines the consistency we rely on for error-checking. Logical impossibility needs to remain intact for us to be able to decide whether something is being falsified or not.

Here is something unfalsifiable.
A unicorn is a magical creature that cannot be sensed in any way. — Philosophim

True.

But there's statements that we know to be true without sensing something or recording something, so the inference doesn't appear to be valid.

To be clear, falsifiable means, "I can imagine a situation in which something is false."
— Philosophim

You have to make it clear that the "situation" is empirical. — Hallucinogen

I should probably say "Testable". That normally is empirical, but it there was a non-empirical way of testing something, its the testing that matters.

But there's statements that we know to be true without sensing something or recording something, so the inference doesn't appear to be valid. — Hallucinogen

Knowing something is true doesn't mean its falsifiable. John is a human. We know this. Its true. But if he were a snail, he wouldn't be a human. Falsifiable does not mean, "It can be proven to be false", its that "There is a state of being which would negate the claim that "X is Y", and that can be as simple as "X cannot be Y if X is Z".

Falsifiable does not mean, "It can be proven to be false", its that "There is a state of being which would negate the claim that "X is Y", and that can be as simple as "X cannot be Y if X is Z". — Philosophim

:up: I think Hallucinogen's dissatisfaction comes from wanting a definitive call on whether or not all statements have this available. They don't. But ones which are apt for it either have what you've described (i.e an counterfactual) or they don't.

There's a claim I've come across numerous times, to the effect of "If P is unfalsifiable, then it cannot be known to be true or false". — Hallucinogen

That claim seems to be based on a misapplication of Popper's Principle (or rule of thumb) of Falsifiability*1. Karl Popper concluded that humans --- based on limited information, from a relative perspective --- can never know or prove Absolute Truth. Consequently, Scientific "facts" remain tentative & conjectural, but more-or-less useful & practical. And philosophical "truths" are posited, not proven. So they remain moot after all these years. Moreover, (Bayesian) degrees-of-belief are Probabilistic (statistical), not Absolute (incontrovertible).

The current issue of Philosophy Now magazine has a letter-to-the-editor, on the topic of "limits of knowledge". One writer said "originally, I thought everyone agreed that knowledge and truth were not relative, but absolute". And indeed, the ancient Greek philosophers aspired to Ideal truths*2. But in retrospect, their universal principles were inferred generalities, not specific observed facts. So, the writer noted that "absolute truth is much like infinity : mathematicians and particle physicists love the concept, yet no one can touch it. . . . . But just because you can't find it, does not make it false. Popper be damned : keep looking."

Therefore, when someone claims to possess slam-dunk, mic-drop Truth, it's usually based on some personally accepted authority, like the Bible. So, you'd do better to falsify (critical analysis) the authoritative Source, than to analyze the specific Truth (dogma). :smile:


*1. Karl Popper's concept of falsifiability is a principle in the philosophy of science that defines a theory as genuinely scientific only if it can be proven false (falsified) through observation or experiment, distinguishing science from pseudoscience like astrology or psychoanalysis. Instead of trying to verify theories (which is difficult), scientists should actively try to disprove them; a theory gains strength by resisting falsification, not by being confirmed. This critical approach, known as falsificationism, posits that science progresses by eliminating erroneous theories, not by proving them absolutely true, using logical deduction to reject hypotheses that contradict predictions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=karl+popper+falsifiable

*2. Greek philosophy holds that absolute truth is an unchanging, objective, and universal reality existing independent of human opinion, often discoverable through reason, logic, and contemplation. Key proponents like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle argued against relativism, focusing on absolute moral truths, the Theory of Forms, and objective, eternal knowledge
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=greek+philosophy+absolute+truth
Note --- Plato abhorred the pragmatic truths of practical Sophistry, in favor of Logical & Ideal Truths. So, he would be appalled at Einstein's Theory of Relativity (frames of reference).

But this is flawed because of tautology, — Hallucinogen

Isn't tautology always true in logic? Tautology is not flawed.

"If it’s unfalsifiable you don’t know if it is true or false." — Hallucinogen

But how do you know if it is unfalsifiable first place?

Since theories are usually ambiguous and interpreted within a specific context, I would say:

A theory's interpretation is unfalsifiable if the interpretation does not imply a means for potentially refuting the theory under that intepretation.

For example, we can probably all agree that "All Swans are White" is a falsifiable proposition; I say "probably" because I am assuming we can all agree that a "swan" isn't white de dicto but de re, and that we can all agree that whiteness is a publicly observable and testable empirical category.

On the other hand, if either of those two assumptions fail, such that the theory is no longer interpreted as implying a means of potential refutation, then the interpretation of that theory is unfalsifiable.

Isn't tautology always true in logic? Tautology is not flawed. — Corvus

I didn't say tautology is flawed.

But how do you know if it is unfalsifiable first place? — Corvus

A statement is falsifiable if we can specify a condition under which empirical observation can contradict it.

The question isn't what un/falsifiabiliy is, the question is why would someone think that if X is unfalsifiable, then there's no way to determine if it is true or false.

A statement is falsifiable if we can specify a condition under which empirical observation can contradict it. — Hallucinogen

Could you give some example cases? Because it seems depends on what the statements were.

Any scientific statement, for example: "All swans are white".

Any scientific statement, for example: "All swans are white". — Hallucinogen

Just means that all swans seen up to now are white. If you spotted a black swan tomorrow, that doesn't negate the statement all swans are white. The black swan should be treated as a rare case, which needs further investigation on its nature.

Just means that all swans seen up to now are white. — Corvus

What do you think I was trying to say?

If you spotted a black swan tomorrow, that doesn't negate the statement all swans are white. — Corvus

I'm starting to get the impression that you're joking.

Nuh. Swans are black. The white ones are foreigners.

I'm starting to get the impression that you're joking. — Hallucinogen

No joking. Common sense.

but it there was a non-empirical way of testing something, its the testing that matters. — Philosophim

No, because including tests that have to violate logic to return a false answer simply gets rid of all meaningful-but-unfalsifiable statements. All you're left with is paradoxes and unintelligible statements. Unfalsifiably true statements like tautologies are an important category.

Sure. It's common sense that seeing a black swan doesn't negate that all swans are white.

The critical words you seem to miss here is "up to now".
Don't forget the statement was made based on the past event, not now or future.

The critical words you seem to miss here is "up to now". — Corvus

This is what you said, look.

If you spotted a black swan tomorrow, that doesn't negate the statement all swans are white. — Corvus

The "up to now" is in contrast with the statement you're making. So it doesn't save it from being logically fallacious.

The "up to now" is in contrast with the statement you're making. So it doesn't save it from being logically fallacious. — Hallucinogen

The statement All swans are white is based on the past observations, hence it doesn't say anything about now or future observations. If it does, then it would have been a prediction, not a scientific statement.