I learned something new this week, about falsifiable and non-falsifiable claims. When we use hypotheses to examine the world around us, we look for observations that can disprove that hypothesis. In other words, we want to see if we can make the experiment fail in some way, to understand more.
As an example:
- Hypothesis: All green apples taste sour.
- Data: I eat four green apples. They taste sour. Then I have a fifth green apple. It tastes sweet to me.
- I have disproven the hypothesis that all green apples taste sour. I have falsified that statement.
In contrast, here are some of my colleagues’ concerns about the vaccine:
- Hypothesis: The COVID vaccine causes Multiple Sclerosis symptoms to worsen, or it affects fertility. (Both of these statements are false. These people believe them to be true.)
- Data: In all the CDC and other data about vaccine effects, there is no data to prove this.
- We cannot disprove this hypothesis. The hypothesis is not falsifiable.
People believe these unfalsifiable claims because they have a value system that says these claims are true. We could use any other example of bureaucratic procedures that we have put into place over the years. (Think “Welfare Queens,” the hoops we make homeless people jump through, and the “zero tolerance” for almost anything.)
When people have a value system that depends on non-falsifiable claims, we can’t use logic. We can only empathize with them and honor their values. (I didn’t say agree. I said honor.)
Possibilities to Honor Other People’s Core Values
My dad and I agreed on societal problems and disagreed (vehemently!) on how to solve them. For example, for years, he didn’t “believe” in climate change. So I asked him, “What if climate change was real? How would we behave? And since we still have the same dependence on fossil fuels as we had in the 1970s, how would that figure into what you would choose to do and not do?”
At first, he said that we should drill for more oil while we had an “orderly” transition to renewable energy.
I laughed and asked when the last time we had an orderly transition to anything.
He laughed, too.
Then, we actually started to discuss alternatives. He was a proponent of nuclear energy, and I’m still a little on the fence. However, we know a whole lot more about how to make nuclear plants much safer. We both thought wind power was a great idea, especially since it brings alternative jobs to perenially poor areas of the country. (In Massachusetts, the fishing industry is a fraction of its former self. Yet, the people who used to fish and their families still live in those communities. How can people there make a good living?)
We disagreed on the amount of regulation, even when I reminded him that he told me this years ago: Regulation increases innovation. That’s the idea of constraints making us innovate more. (See When Do Constraints Help?)
We moved from his unfalsifiable claims based on his values to a reasonable discussion. No, we didn’t solve anything, but we honored each other’s values and had good discussions.
Aim for Discussion, Not Agreement
When I realize I’m discussing unfalsifiable claims with someone, I don’t try to convince (or be convinced) of anything. Instead, I focus on creating a useful discussion. We might need to go “meta,” to discuss the issues around the issue at hand. My dad didn’t change his mind on climate change for years, but we were able to discuss the issues in terms of leaving a planet for his grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
We can always choose how to discuss these fraught issues. Aside from moving from position (a decided outcome) to principle (the reasons for our decisions), we can choose whether to discuss the issue at hand, or the system that creates the issue at hand.
Especially if we have non-falsifiable claims, it’s almost never about the topic—it’s about the person’s values. We have choices. Let’s use them.
That’s the question this week: How can we honor other people’s values and move to falsifiable claims?