Unfalsifiability

Jack Bowen

Horoscopes correctly predict the future: you just need to know how to inter­pret them. For example, if a horoscope predicted Bill would have a good day, but then that day Bill got fired from his job, his girlfriend broke up with him unexpectedly, and his car broke down, Bill could conclude that he now has the opportunity to look for a new and better job and girlfriend, and start walking more.

Example of the fallacy

The unfalsifiability fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim that is impossible to prove false. In our example, no possible evidence or outcomes could falsify the claim, “Horoscopes correctly predict the future.” In this case, they have counted as “good” things we typically consider not good, such as getting fired, being left by a loved one, and having one’s car break down. If these count as “good,” then, it seems, no possible state of affairs could be considered not good. That being the case, the claim is unfalsifiable and becomes essentially meaningless.

Falsifiability - the ability to be falsified or proven wrong - is considered a key criterion for deeming a hypothesis scientific. As philosopher of science Karl Popper reflects, “A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice” (Popper 2014, n.p.). That is to say, while it may initially seem a strength for a theory to have no way of being proven false, it turns out to render the theory useless and, thus, relying on such a theory to determine future conclusions is fallacious. With the impossibility of false­hood goes the loss of predictive and explanatory power (see also Chapter 40).

It often helps to think of the fallacy in terms of predictability. Viewing this particular horoscope in the manner considered provides no predictive power.

It’s important to recognize that, as with most fallacious statements, committing the unfalsifiability fallacy does not necessarily prove a state­ment is false, just that no possible result or observation could demonstrate its falsehood. This is one reason such thinking can be so seductive. Conspiracy theories often rely on unfalsifiable claims in which the theorist ardently defends a theory despite any facts that disprove it, suggesting only, “Well, it’s a conspiracy. It’s impossible to disprove.” Understanding the unfalsifiability fallacy helps to highlight where this sort of approach goes awry.

One can implement various strategies to combat committing this fallacy. First, clear conditions must be established as to how a proposed statement or claim could be falsified. For example, when the geocentric theory was posited, there were possible results from various tests regarding the bending of light, effects of gravity, and so on, which made the theory falsifiable. As we now know, the geocentric theory was, in fact, falsified and now the helio­centric theory has taken its place, itself another falsifiable, testable theory.

Second, we should be aware of how we consider our acceptance of various beliefs. Humans are naturally inclined toward confirmation: confirming our beliefs provides comfort, feels good, and yet can lead us to (wrongly) assum­ing a particular belief holds true. This confirmation bias happens in the case of those defending paranormal, pseudoscientific theories: they seek only to confirm and never to disconfirm.

This feature of human nature makes us vulnerable to deception. Horoscopes, for example, often make contradictory claims about a reader’s life, knowing the reader will seek to confirm the horoscope’s prediction no matter what happens, and hence conclude, “Horoscopes correctly predict the future.” As an example of how a horoscope does this, consider these unfalsifiable predictions: “You will create your own success, or may just have success come to you given your affable personality,” and, “Your rela­tionship will continue to bring great joy unless it has run its course, in which

case you will encounter great despair.” These statements are both excessively general, such that they’re true about nearly everyone, and they also allow readers to choose what fits their own lives, either “creating success” or “having success come to them,” and also having a relationship bring both “joy” and “despair” - whichever they see themselves experiencing.

And so, instead of seeking to confirm a specific claim, one should consider what possible state of affairs would render it false. One should seek to dis­confirm it. While confirming instances of a claim can add some credibility to it, a single disconfirming instance renders it falsified. Every white swan we encounter is evidence all swans are white, but one black swan proves that the general claim is untrue.

Once the criterion of falsifiability has been established, it is important to examine a statement or theory more critically. The defense of horoscopes not only involves an unfalsifiable claim but can also involve anecdotes. As it turns out, when tested objectively, claims made by horoscopes (and other pseudoscientific approaches) tend to be false considerably more often than many people recognize. Because of the bias toward confirmation and the vagueness and unfalsifiability of such claims, people often recognize only the “hits” - the times their hypothesis was proven correct - and they ignore the “misses” - the various times it was falsified.

Studies repeatedly show that people accept conclusions that conform to their current beliefs and reject those that do not. For example, when a subject who opposes same-sex marriage is shown statistics that are unfa­vorable regarding same-sex marriage and child rearing, he tends to accept the findings; yet when such subjects are shown statistics favoring same-sex marriage and child rearing, they reject the data and instead chose some other form of defense, typically on moral grounds, instead of relying on statistics and data. Likewise, those defending the other position tend to accept data that favors their position and reject other data, offering, instead, some sort of post hoc reasoning such that their position remains intact. Because so many of our beliefs are rooted in emotion, it is often difficult to “think slowly” and work through the logic and factual claims that may uproot this belief so emotionally entrenched in our ideological framework.

As with most of our philosophical reasoning, one of the big takeaway points and strategies for avoiding committing fallacies such as this involves keeping an open mind. Recognize you may be wrong and may not have all the relevant information needed to develop a sound conclusion. In addition, it is helpful to follow Plato’s dictum, “Know thyself.” Understand we are all subject to relying on and creating unfalsifiable statements because they help confirm what we already believe. In recognizing this in ourselves and also seeking to disconfirm our previously held beliefs, we can better avoid making fallacious arguments and, thus, be more likely to develop conclusions that are true.

References

Popper, Karl. 2014. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.

Shaw, George Bernard. 1928. The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism. New York, NY: Transaction.