1.1.7.4 Falsifiability

Version 1.3 March 2013                                         (Previous Version)

In logic we can test whether an explanation, and argument, or a world view is internally consistent.  We can, and must, also check whether our explanations are consistent with reality.  This is the principle of falsifiability.  An explanation that has no connection with reality would be by definition unreal:  it may well be interesting in itself, but it must by definition have no impact on our day to day lives.  We are concerned with explanations that are connected to reality.

In science we hope to be able to devise theories that are at least in principle falsifiable.  This means that it is conceivable that we could devise and conduct an experiment or make some observation that would show the theory is wrong, or at least incomplete in that area.

Science progresses partly by exploring the inconsistencies and gaps in our scientific understanding.  Scientists develop a theory or a model (a set of ideas, concepts and rules) to explain some phenomena, work out what behaviour is predicted by the model, then check whether these predictions come true.  If they don’t, it means the theory can’t be totally correct, so we may need to modify the theory or look for a new one. 

Many theories are still very useful, explain many observations, and make many valid predictions, even though some facts are inconsistent with the theory, so it can’t be completely true.  The theory of relativity is unrivalled for explaining the behaviour of things that are large or moving very quickly, but is less useful at the sub-atomic level, where quantum theory is unrivalled.

Some scientists say that if there is no way a theory or model could be inconsistent with the facts then it is not scientific.  To be science, they say, the theory or model must make some predictions that we can test, at least in principle if not in practice.

·       Einstein’s theory of relativity made some predictions that were only confirmed decades later.

·       Some people suggest string theory isn’t scientific because it makes no testable predictions.

As we find faults in our theories and devise new theories, or refine the old theory to fit more facts, we feel as though we are approaching the truth, that the new theory is better because it explains more facts, or explains the facts more elegantly.  But scientists are always aware that their theories might have flaws that will be discovered in the future. 

It is the dream of many young scientists to make a ground breaking discovery, which often means finding a hole or a flaw in the current orthodoxy.  Science is a competitive business.  Crusty old models that don’t fit the facts will soon have their flaws exposed by up and coming scientists wanting to demonstrate their own brilliance and build their own careers on their new insights. 

Historian can aspire to a similar ideal, to devise a general rule about how people or societies then check this against the facts.  Historians can’t create experiments to check their theories, but they can check what happened in different societies at the same time or the same society at different times.  For instance, we can check if a law change is effective by looking at what happened before and after it is introduced in one state, and compare these results to what happened in other states that haven’t implemented that law.  Some people call these ‘natural experiments’.

In philosophy, we can’t make such experiments.  We can’t devise a philosophical view (as distinct from a scientific or historical theory) that we can test against the facts.  Philosophy is more about clarifying what we mean, working our why or how we can believe something and the implications of our beliefs.  Philosophers always have to check whether their ideas are contrary to what actually happens, but some competing philosophies are equally consistent with the facts,

Our personal philosophy (not academic philosophy, but our philosophy as individuals) is about the core choices we make, which reflect our values.  We choose to pursue the truth, diversity, life, love, beauty, equality, responsibility and hope.  There is no definitive test that will persuade all reasonably minded people that these choices, these values, are “correct” or the best.  They are in principle more or less falsifiable because it is possible that what we expect doesn’t in fact happen: perhaps our core choices are inappropriate or not the best ones we can make.

We can, and do, explore the consequences of our choices.  We believe, based on reason and the evidence, that adopting these values leads to a more fulfilling and perhaps happier life.  If we came to believe that the world is different from what we thought it was, it would only be reasonable to be willing to make different choices, to change our values, if the evidence warrants it.  People make such changes all the time, when they adopt a new religion or become more devout in their old religion, or when they learn that the religion they have been taught is internally inconsistent, factually incorrect and morally wrong.

In religion, we can check the religious analysis, expression and action against reality.

Traditional religious texts, written hundreds or thousands of years ago, contain a mixture of philosophy, science and history together with rules for artistic expression, and personal behaviour.  The scientific and historical statements can be tested against the facts, and are often found wanting, which is why many religious people treat those sections of their sacred texts as allegories.  Those who claim that their religious texts contain literally true scientific and historical statements are open to their beliefs being falsified, just like any other scientific or historical theory.  A claim that God has certain attributes that are manifest in this world can be tested.  We can compare the results of prayers for god’s intervention to the outcomes, and we can observe whether the facts in the world are consistent with God’s supposed nature.

In our personal life, we can choose to be good regardless of the consequences.  We can’t guarantee that choosing reasonable values leads to a happier life: sometimes it doesn’t.  We are not making the same consistency check against reality that we would do in science or history.  This doesn’t mean we are out of touch with reality, it just means the test is more complex. 

In our political actions we need to look at the consequences, but may pursue long term goals.  We are often disappointed in the electorate, which often chooses the ‘wrong’ party to rule, and often disappointed in our rulers, who pursue stupid, short-term, selfish solutions and break the promises they made.  In any political environment we don’t always get what we want, but we can continue to participate in the struggle for what is right.