AKA “Silence Disguised as Information”, is a phrase I commonly use to point out the uselessness of unfalsifiable claims.
Depending on tone and context, it can be considered derogatory, as it can be used to mock/call-out people for talking BS.
Persons A, B, & C, are “Alice”, “Bob”, and “Carl” (respectively). They only exist in this example, not IRL
Let’s say, hypothetically, that Alice claims “all electric charges in the universe flip polarity, every 2 seconds”. Since electric-charges are only “positive” or “negative” with respect to their opposites, and all of physics works exactly the same regardless of electric-sign, Alice’s statement is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Alice doesn’t know (or doesn’t want to accept) that her dogmatic brain believes her hypothesis is a “fact”.
Now suppose Bob says “I agree with Alice, but it’s every 1s, not 2s”. Alice’s and Bob’s claims are “compatible” despite contradicting each other. This is because Bob’s and Alice’s claims match every 2s.
Now suppose Carl says “It’s truly-random intervals”. This claim is completely incompatible with Alice’s & Bob’s, as the “interval” is no longer regular (according to Carl).
They argue for minutes, almost 1 hour, and nobody wants to admit they’re wrong. Finally, they all go home, ignoring what everyone said.
All 3 of their claims can be easily reduced to empty statements. Those claims are data that doesn’t hold information. In logic, every empty-statement has a negation that’s “just as plausible” as the original, rendering both claims useless when it comes to explaining reality.