Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole by Stephen Law Page A
Authors: Stephen Law
Ads: Link
defenders of Aristotle's view suggested that there must be an invisible substance covering the surface of the moon, filling up its valleys right to the tops of the mountains, so that the moon is,after all, perfectly spherical. The falsification was in this case deflected away from Aristotle's theory and on to the auxiliary hypothesis that any material making up the surface of the moon must be visible.
Other strategies for defending a theory include exploiting vagueness and ambiguity in the theory or the predictions derived from it—to reinterpret them so that what is observed turns out to “fit” after all. This is, as already noted, a favorite trick of psychics and soothsayers.
Ad Hoc Maneuvers
Popper realized that even mainstream scientists can and do employ such strategies in order to defend their theories. He did not think this was always a bad thing. In particular, Popper thought that defending Newton's theory of universal gravitation by postulating a mystery planet was entirely acceptable, because it led to new tests —scientists could actually look to see if there was planet in the place predicted.
What Popper considered particularly suspect were attempts to defend a theory by means of modifications that introduced no new tests. So, for example, the postulation of an invisible substance on the surface of moon in order to salvage the Aristotelian theory that all heavenly bodies are perfectly spherical led to no new tests—there was nothing scientists could do at the time to check whether any such substance was there. Popper calls such untestable hypotheses introduced to immunize a theory against falsification “ad hoc.”
Popper noted that the more such strategies are employed to protect a theory from falsification, the less falsifiable it becomes, until eventually we end up with a theory that is not falsifiable at all. In Popper's view, an unfalsifiable theory is not scientific. Theories that claim to be scientific but fail to meet the test of falsifiability are mere pseudoscience.
TWO KINDS OF IMMUNITY TO FALSIFICATION
My suggestion is that Young Earth Creationism, as promoted and defended by today's adherents, is also an unfalsifiable theory. But, before we look again at Young Earth Creationism, it's worth taking a short detour to look at two quite different ways in which theories can achieve unfalsifiability. We'll see, interestingly, that there are at least two versions of Young Earth Creationism, and they achieve unfalsifiability in a different way.
Popper himself distinguishes two ways in which a theory might be rendered unfalsifiable. Let's focus for a moment on Popper's own examples. He considered both Marx's theory of history and the psychoanalytic theories of Freud and Adler unfalsifiable, but for different reasons.
The problem with Freud's and Adler's psychoanalytic theories, thought Popper, is that, whatever human behavior is observed, it can always be interpreted to “fit” either theory. Popper, who knew Adler, remarks:
As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child.
Popper believed the same was true of Freud's theories. They both appeared to fit the evidence and to thus be supported by the evidence, no matter what evidence might show up. Popper illustrated by considering two hypothetical situations—one in which a man pushes a child into water with the intention of drowning the child, and one in which a man sacrifices himself to save a child. Popper claims each of these two events can be explained with equal ease in Freudian and Adlerian terms:
According to Freud the first man suffered from repression (say, of some component of his Oedipus complex), while the second man had achieved sublimation. According to Adler the first man suffered from feelings
Other strategies for defending a theory include exploiting vagueness and ambiguity in the theory or the predictions derived from it—to reinterpret them so that what is observed turns out to “fit” after all. This is, as already noted, a favorite trick of psychics and soothsayers.
Ad Hoc Maneuvers
Popper realized that even mainstream scientists can and do employ such strategies in order to defend their theories. He did not think this was always a bad thing. In particular, Popper thought that defending Newton's theory of universal gravitation by postulating a mystery planet was entirely acceptable, because it led to new tests —scientists could actually look to see if there was planet in the place predicted.
What Popper considered particularly suspect were attempts to defend a theory by means of modifications that introduced no new tests. So, for example, the postulation of an invisible substance on the surface of moon in order to salvage the Aristotelian theory that all heavenly bodies are perfectly spherical led to no new tests—there was nothing scientists could do at the time to check whether any such substance was there. Popper calls such untestable hypotheses introduced to immunize a theory against falsification “ad hoc.”
Popper noted that the more such strategies are employed to protect a theory from falsification, the less falsifiable it becomes, until eventually we end up with a theory that is not falsifiable at all. In Popper's view, an unfalsifiable theory is not scientific. Theories that claim to be scientific but fail to meet the test of falsifiability are mere pseudoscience.
TWO KINDS OF IMMUNITY TO FALSIFICATION
My suggestion is that Young Earth Creationism, as promoted and defended by today's adherents, is also an unfalsifiable theory. But, before we look again at Young Earth Creationism, it's worth taking a short detour to look at two quite different ways in which theories can achieve unfalsifiability. We'll see, interestingly, that there are at least two versions of Young Earth Creationism, and they achieve unfalsifiability in a different way.
Popper himself distinguishes two ways in which a theory might be rendered unfalsifiable. Let's focus for a moment on Popper's own examples. He considered both Marx's theory of history and the psychoanalytic theories of Freud and Adler unfalsifiable, but for different reasons.
The problem with Freud's and Adler's psychoanalytic theories, thought Popper, is that, whatever human behavior is observed, it can always be interpreted to “fit” either theory. Popper, who knew Adler, remarks:
As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child.
Popper believed the same was true of Freud's theories. They both appeared to fit the evidence and to thus be supported by the evidence, no matter what evidence might show up. Popper illustrated by considering two hypothetical situations—one in which a man pushes a child into water with the intention of drowning the child, and one in which a man sacrifices himself to save a child. Popper claims each of these two events can be explained with equal ease in Freudian and Adlerian terms:
According to Freud the first man suffered from repression (say, of some component of his Oedipus complex), while the second man had achieved sublimation. According to Adler the first man suffered from feelings
Similar Books
