"False" isn't correct in strict boolean terms either, since that implies that the inverse is true. Claiming "there is extraterrestrial life in the universe" is false is logically equivalent to claiming that "no extraterrestrial life exists anywhere in the universe" is true.
Both statements would have to be interpreted as "false" under your criteria, as neither has any evidence to substantiate it. That leads us to a logical contradiction in which a proposition and its inverse are both regarded as false.
If the statement is being interpreted as "it has been proven that extraterrestrial life exists somewhere in the universe", then it's acceptable to say this statement is false, but making evaluations that depend on an implicit qualifier isn't usually a good approach.
If we strictly follow logic, then nobody and nothing can claim that anything is true or false. We just stick these labels to things which seems to have high enough probability. The problem is that “high enough” is very-very-very different for different people, topics, and even time.
> If we strictly follow logic, then nobody and nothing can claim that anything is true or false.
Sure they can. They may or may not be correct, but that's a matter of empirical validation entirely distinct from the logic flow itself. Whether or not a conclusion is logically implied by its hypotheses has nothing to do with whether the input hypotheses are themselves true. Logic is just the reasoning process.
> We just stick these labels to things which seems to have high enough probability. The problem is that “high enough” is very-very-very different for different people, topics, and even time.
That's true, but outside the scope of logic, and is entirely a matter of semantics.
You fucked up causality. My sentence has a clear causality order, which you ignored. You are right if we ignore that, and you are right that people ignore logic many times. For a good reason.
I replied like that because I think you applied logic too strictly already.
> You fucked up causality. My sentence has a clear causality order, which you ignored.
I'm afraid I'm not seeing anything related to causality in your previous comment. On top of that, any discussion of causality would also itself be an empirical question, and so would be upstream of drawing logical conclusions out of already accepted hypotheses.
> I replied like that because I think you applied logic too strictly already.
Boolean logic is consists of on deterministic evaluation of binary values, so there is no concept of "too strictly" applicable to it. It's essentially math, wherein there's a specific correct answer determined by rules that are always applied the same way.
Both statements would have to be interpreted as "false" under your criteria, as neither has any evidence to substantiate it. That leads us to a logical contradiction in which a proposition and its inverse are both regarded as false.
If the statement is being interpreted as "it has been proven that extraterrestrial life exists somewhere in the universe", then it's acceptable to say this statement is false, but making evaluations that depend on an implicit qualifier isn't usually a good approach.