Beware Falsifiability

Science is famously, but incorrectly regarded as our fundamental method of understanding the truth about the nature of reality. Scientists, consequently, strive for objectivity: the position that 1) there is only one, universal, absolute truth that exists independently of one’s wishes or conscious awareness, and 2) facts of reality must be obtained by specific, reality-oriented rules and methods.

This is very difficult without philosophy. The study that is their fundamental source of understanding the nature of reality and its relationship to the human consciousness has been thrown aside as a secondary issue.

Nevertheless, highly respected philosopher of science Karl Popper contributed a component to the scientific method called “falsifiability.” Despite some nasty criticism about Popper’s ideas, falsifiability has been widely used by scientists since its conception. Several blogs may be found on the internet where scientists are writing about their ideas with falsifiability as a part of their scientific reasoning. But is falsifiability a valid concept?

(For clarification, “falsify,” like many words, has two meanings. The first means “to lie.” The second, formulated by Karl Popper, means: “to show to be false.”)

For Popper, the concept of “falsifiability” arises when one is faced with the traditional problem of induction. He claims that the generalization “all swans are white” is falsifiable because that generalization can be shown to be false when one sees a black swan. Popper takes this and formulates a universal principle of reasoning out of it: since it is impossible to observe all the evidence that exists, any induction must necessarily be false, because somewhere out there exists a piece of evidence that will refute any generalization.

Additionally, in the Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl Popper purported “falsifiability” to be a solution to the problem of demarcation – a matter of distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific. Consequently, Popper suggested that all ideas or concepts, in order to be considered scientific, must be falsifiable, and all unscientific ideas must be unfalsifiable. Since philosophy is considered to be secondary to science, philosophy was to be included in the category of “unfalsifiable,” while a fact is something that, in order to prove to be true, must also be able to be shown to be false, or: a fact is something which is falsifiable.

First of all, let’s get the obvious contradiction out of the way: the Law of Identity forbids for a proposition to be both true and false at the same time. Contradictions cannot exist in reality. Treating facts in the manner Popper has suggested is the most powerful demolition of logical reasoning science endured since the age of Kant.

Second of all, regarding Popper’s approach to the problem of induction, he is wrong to set omniscience as a standard for objectivity, and he is wrong to implicitly suggest that the older proposition “all swans are white” was ever true in the first place. It was always false. Regardless of how certain many people might have been about the truth of that statement, one can be certain but still be wrong. The point, however, is that an objective generalization must be formulated out of one’s observation of the widest relevant context that one may obtain in the induction process. It does not stand to reason that one’s knowledge of reality today is non-objective simply because we might learn more and make better generalizations tomorrow.

Having these arguments against Popper, one might assert that falsifiability is an invalid concept – one that was conceived from irrational premises. So what happens when scientists implement this invalid concept into their scientific method? Further investigation shows a terrifying result: it doesn’t matter whether a theory is falsifiable or unfalsifiable. Having either status means the same thing: total agnosticism.

If a scientific theory is falsifiable, that means that one may gather all the evidence and conduct all the experiments one may, but must remember that they will never arrive at a final answer. Popper’s principle says that there is always a piece of evidence somewhere that, as soon as it is found, will destroy all the knowledge you presume to gather from your scientific research. With this in mind, Popper has obliterated the very notion that certainty or the discovery of an Objective reality is possible. By suggesting one may never know the truth of a matter, one is necessarily taking the position of agnosticism.

But if a scientific theory is unfalsifiable, Popper says that that means one cannot suggest the theory is either true or false because of the fact that there is no observational or scientific data to support the “unscientific question.” The truth (which he regards to be impossible to achieve) or falseness of a question is a matter restricted to science and only science. Philosophic questions, like whether a God exists, or whether a particular virtue is moral, are questions which scientists must necessarily take the position of agnosticism.

Anyone who accepts Karl Popper’s concept of “falsifiability” consistently must take the agnostic position on everything that is cognitively possible for man to interpret in reality, from issues of science to issues of war, issues of health and issues of morals, issues of heroes and issues of villains.

Such is the attitude Karl Popper brought to the realm of science; but with that attitude, one not only lost the idea that an Objective reality is possible to discover, but also lost the means required to discover it! Popper also regarded falsifiability as a solution to distinguish between two epistemological methods of thinking: rationalism and empiricism. While one side strives to find truth solely by using their reasoning mind and without evidence, the other side attempts to find truth simply by looking at the evidence and forgetting to implement logical interpretation. Popper regarded the empiricists to be the true scientific thinkers, and suggested that falsifiability applies for empirical matters, and rationalistic matters were unfalsifiable.

But Objectivity is a relationship of the application of logic to experience. There is no “dichotomy” between what goes on in the mind (logic) and what evidence one observes in reality (experience). As long as scientists continue to accept this false dichotomy, and accept the obvious contradiction involved in Popper’s idea of what is “true,” objectivity will never be within their grasp. When scientists accept Karl Popper’s concept of falsifiability in the name of objectivity, it is the concept of falsifiability that destroys any chance of objective thinking.

I strongly advise all rising scientists to stay away from the concept of falsifiability, and for all scientists currently using this as a component in their scientific method to reject and remove this concept from their context of knowledge. Clear the way for objective reasoning, and start looking for an objective reality. It is there.

There’s More Than One “War on Humans”

In the recently released documentary War on Humans, Wesley J. Smith discusses and condemns the immoral ideology of animal rights activists and their campaigns to equalize humans and animals on moral terms. Unfortunately, the alternative morality Smith offers is no more human-oriented than that of the activists.

Smith distinguishes between the activists’ and his own view of morality in the following quote.

[I]f being human isn’t what gives us the duty to treat animals humanely, what does? It is the fact that we’re human that we have that obligation. But animal rights — the ideology — they say being human isn’t what gives value, [it is] ‘the ability to feel pain,’ or ‘the ability to suffer.’ And since a cow can feel pain and a human being can feel pain that means what we do to a cow should be viewed the same way as if that action was done to a human being, meaning that cattle ranching, just as one example, is akin to slavery.

First, understand that “value” is used in this context to mean the source, or rationale, for a living organism’s rights. Now we can see why neither of these views on morality is logical.

As Ayn Rand observed, rights originate not from any sort of value (intrinsic or otherwise), but from the faculty of free will. Human beings do not live by instinctive behaviors the way animals do; they think, act, and select their values by choice. Without free will, human beings could not launch wars, nor could they hold rights. Without free will, the issue of right and wrong does not apply.

But, whereas the activists avoid the issue, Wesley J. Smith destroys the very idea of free will. Contrary to Smith’s claim, it is the fact that we’re human that we have no obligation, no duty, no unquestioned obedience to any course of action. Generating a war much more destructive than “animal rights,” the moral ideology of “duty” is truly akin to slavery.

Luckily, these wars can be resolved. Both Smith and animal rights activists must drop a morality that actively works against mankind, and learn how an objective rights-based morality is the only proper philosophy for mankind. They can start by recognizing that humans have free will.