Magical Realist:
More unfalsifiable claims:
1. Neutrinos exist
2. Zebras exist
3. Black holes exist
4. Pine trees exist
5. Quarks exist
ETC ETC ETC
Most of those are falsifiable.
For example, if by "neutrino" one means a neutral particle that is expected to be observed in radioactive beta decay, then conservation of momentum and energy in an experimental observation that did not include the neutrino would show that a neutrino was not present, for example. A similar argument applies to quarks.
The general claim "Zebras exist" is unfalsifiable because you'd have to look everywhere to rule out the possibility of any zebra existing. A more restricted claim, such as "Zebras exist in this zoo" would be falsifiable. A similar argument applies to pine trees.
It is often important to be specific about definitions before you start. So, for example, if you're trying to falsify black holes, you should start by first defining clearly what does and does not count as a black hole. Also, it may be easier to establish the fact by phrasing your existence statement as a negative, as in "Black holes do not exist". That statement is easier to falsify that "Black holes exist" because you only need to find one black hole to falsify it, whereas to falsify the existence of black holes you need to be sure that there are no black holes anywhere.
In other words, any existential statement whatsoever is unfalsifiable because no amount of observation would ever falsify that statement. That pretty much makes much of science's claims entirely unfalsifiable.
You are on the right track with general existential statements. This is one reason why scientific claims tend to be specific rather than general and vague.
I don't understand why we are still calling the claim falsifiable even after it has been verified as true. After you prove I am 6 ft tall, you have established that as a fact. So the claim is no longer falsifiable. It has become a verified fact. I AM 6 ft tall. No amount of testing could ever falsify this fact. Aren't verfified claims and theories unfalsifiable?
Falsifiability is a concept that is useful
before the definitive test is done, obviously. If you already definitely know a claim if true or false, then falsifiability is irrelevant. Remember that here we are trying to define what is scientific and what is not. If we know something exists for sure, then we just have a bare fact, not a scientific theory. On the other hand, when it comes to entities such as neutrinos or quarks, which are observed only indirectly, then the definition of what it means for such a thing to exist is tied up in the theory itself. It then becomes important to ask the question: what test of this theory would show that the defined entity does not exist (which would therefore falsify the theory).
So, just to be clear, we need only worry about whether the claim that "MR is 6 feet tall" is falsifiable
before somebody does the definitive test (in this case, a simple measurement). We ask: is there, in principle, a test we could do to show that MR is
not 6 feet tall? And the clear answer, before we measure anything, is "yes". So the theory is falsifiable. Once the test is actually done, we have either a true theory or a false theory and the question of falsifiability becomes irrelevant.
This is the simplest kind of example. If we look a real-world scientific theory, many millions of different tests are usually possible, at least in principle. Take Newton's laws of motion, for example. They are falsifiable because there are countless experiments we could do in which, in principle, Newton's laws might fail to accurately describe the situation. Obviously, though, we can never actually do all possible experiments that might falsify Newton's laws. That means that Newton's laws will never be confirmed as true. But they could, in principle, be confirmed as false by a single experiment. [Of course, I'm aware of Einstein, but let's not get into that here. This is an example, ok?]
I think alot of confusion here comes from using the term falsifiable for testable. Testable I agree with, though I don't agree that all untestable claims are necessarily unscientific. Saying the Big Bang occurred 12.5 billion yrs ago is not a testable claim, and certainly not falsifiable.
Statements like "the big bang occurred 12.5 billion years ago" are, in fact, being tested all the time through various observations. We know for sure, for example, that the big bang did not happen 1000 years ago, or 1 million years ago, or even 4 billion years ago. The 12.5 billion year figure you give is likewise falsifiable, just like the 1000 year figure or the 4 billion year figure.
The evolution of man from apes isn't testable, yet it is still scientific.
The evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is falsifiable, and each new hominid fossil that is found is a potential risk to the theory. If the wrong fossil ever turned up, that could not be explained by the theory of evolution, then evolution would be falsified.
A common example given to falsify evolution would be find fossilised rabbits in pre-cambrian rock strata. The theory of evolution predicts that no such fossils will ever be found. So, a single find of that kind would falsify the theory.
We could as easily say there is an invisible form of matter called dark matter in the garage. That too is unfalsifiable, even though it may be totally true. Does this mean unscientific statements are inadequate in articulating the state of reality? That ontology is best left in the hands of philosophers?
In the case of dark matter, the first step is to define exactly what is meant by the term. The theory should predict where and how the dark matter can be found. If the theory predicts that dark matter is to be found in garages, and there is a suitable experiment that can detect the dark matter, then the theory is falsifiable.
Our current theories of dark matter, in fact, make specific predictions about dark matter on large scales, like galaxies, while admitting that dark matter will be hard to find in garages. Dark matter is predicted to have very specific effects on the gravitation of galaxies, and these predictions are eminently testable. Thus, the theory is falsifiable.
So a claim is only falsifiable IF it is false.
No. The theory that "MR is 6 feet tall" is falsifiable whether it is true or false, as I have explained.
"Falsifiable" is not the same as "Falsified" or "False" or "True" or "Verified".
"I will eventually encounter a zebra if I look for one." That's a prediction that is certainly testable, but certainly not falsifiable.
That's a vague enough claim that it probably isn't falsifiable, as you say. Make it just a bit more specific and you'd easily turn it into a falsifiable claim.
Why would one want to assume a claim that is verified as true is still falsifiable? Our work is done. The claim is proven. There is nothing left to be done. Why do we need to go back and doubt it's truth with conjectures about it's falsifiability.
We don't. You're correct that if something is verified as true we don't need to worry about falsifiability. Falsifiability usually applies to non-obvious theories, not to raw data that is easily checked one way or the other.
You could never examine every place on earth to rule out for sure that zebras exist. There could always be some place they moved to while you were looking in another place. Therefore it's an unfalsifiable claim that zebras exist.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say. That's why you may be better off looking for the opposite. "Zebras don't exist on Earth" is much easier to falsify than "Zebras exist somewhere on Earth".
A claim like "Ghosts don't exist" can be a scientific statement. "Ghosts exist" ... well, not so much.