Falsification Principle (#415)
Theories are meant to be challenged, and no belief should be impervious to scrutiny
Karl Popper, one of the 20th century's greatest scientific philosophers, is perhaps best known for the falsification principle, a foundation of the modern scientific method.
The basis of Popper’s falsification principle is this: in order for a theory to be objectively accepted as scientific, it needs to be able to be proven false. Popper believed that nothing can be definitively proven without falsification, and he held that theories should always be subject to experimentation and challenged by new information.
One of the simplest illustrations of Popper’s falsification principle concerns the color of sheep. Someone who had only seen white sheep might understandably come to the conclusion that all the sheep in the world are white. That could be considered true provisionally until someone encountered a black sheep. The presence of a black sheep definitively proves the inverse of the original theory: in fact, not all sheep are white.
In this case, the falsification of the “all sheep are white” theory is not a failure, but the scientific method at work. In scientific disciplines, a person posits a thesis and then is receptive to challenges to the thesis, knowing that the ability to withstand challenges creates credibility. Scientists are more focused on discovering the objective truth than being right, and most would rather know sooner rather than later if there is a hole in their theory.
I share the example above because we are seeing the opposite approach too often today.
We seem to be quicker to embrace pseudo-science that confirms our prior assumptions and present strongly held opinions as objective facts when it suits our narratives. Concerningly, this approach seems to be growing fastest in our classrooms and higher education systems, where opinions and ideologies tainted by political bias are presented as absolute truths, as I discussed in a recent article.
The advancement and democratization of communication technology has allowed more people to speak to large audiences than ever before. While that progress has yielded many benefits, the downside is that we are losing our ability to separate objective facts from opinions, hunches, and anecdotes. We are presented with so much information so rapidly that credible experts and misinformation hucksters start to look the same, especially on short-form social media platforms.
This is not to say that unverifiable or unfalsifiable theories have no place in our lives. For example, I have relied on my gut in many different situations and have often gotten good outcomes from that approach. However, I try not to confuse intuition that’s informed by my own experience with an objective truth that applies universally.
For example, I may have a good hiring track record that includes a policy of never hiring someone who shows up late to an interview. That doesn’t mean “people who show up late for an interview should not be hired,” should be taken as a scientific truth. While that may be my experience, it might actually be wrong. Maybe people that are late are actually more creative in the work they do and perform better than people who are on time and do subpar work.
Popper’s falsification principle extends well beyond the scientific realm. The next time you encounter something presented as truth or fact, ask these questions before you agree to accept it:
What information would prove this false, or at least change your mind about this theory?
What kind of tests or experiments could be conducted to verify this theory?
Is there any existing evidence that contradicts this viewpoint? Is there an explanation for that contradiction?
If the answer to the questions above are “nothing,” I would accept or share this “truth” with a giant grain of salt. And needless to say, you should consider using these same questions to test your own beliefs as well before you present them as gospel.
Quote of The Week
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” - Albert Einstein
Have a great weekend!
New For Premium
Great piece! I wrote an article expanding on this idea and referencing this post. Since the questions you raised involved, effectively, experimental design, I included the inability to account for lurking variables and confounding factors. We often cannot account for everything that makes something "true" and we don't know what we don't know! Thank you for this. Appreciate you!
Very excellent post. Much better than previous posts along the same vein of thought in the last several months. Here is evidence of something I have experienced and have observed since elementary school: clear writing is evidence of good thinking. However, like a garden, it takes time to allow seeds of good thought to germinate and bloom into a recognizable (useful) form. Even the greatest of ideas usually benefit a time of rest between the thinking. Like gardening, the stronger and more viable seeds grow. Very well done, Robert Glazer. And I will be using this article for reference in sifting ideas from opinions. Thank you!