Aren't all universal statements lexiconically supported definitions?

[kmarinas86]

Universal statements are not falsifiable.

The reason is that they are defined, supported, reliant upon[...] lexicon!

Lexicon is not science, but its all about establishing vocal or verbal conventions that are "blurt" whenever referencing some concrete or abstract entity.

"All universal statements are lexiconically supported definitions" is an universal statement. It is not falsifiable simply because is it universal statement. It is without exception, peculiar to all languages, both in the ones that is used in and in the ones it is not used in!

Using this logic, we can arrive to the conclusion that even ALL existential statements are unfalsifiable.

Consider this:

"All instances of observation O which have occurred are proof of the existence of a black swan."

Which leads us to a refutation of the following:

"All swans are white."

The problem arises more clearly when someone suggest the contrary:

"No instances of observation O which have occurred are proof of the existence of a black swan."

Which is also unfalsifiable.

 

[Moridin]

The lexicon definition came from the universal statement, not the other way around. Lexicon definitions is not authority in science. In fact, nothing is authority in science.

No scientists say that 'this is correct, because it says so in this book'.

 

[out of whack]

One clear definition is unfalsifiable.

A dictionary full of definitions may be falsifiable or not: all its definitions may be consistent with all others, or one of them may contradict one or more other.

Logic is unfalsifiable because its rules are established by definition and have all been made consistent with each other.

Logical statements made using a consistent dictionary may be falsifiable or not, depending on the semantics of the grammar used. I don't know if a grammar exists with the same rigor as logic. Math comes to mind, but it's not exactly usable in conversation.

Science is something else.