Introduction
“A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable (or refutable) if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test that can potentially be executed with existing technologies.”
Falsifiability is a concept I find both simultaneously easy and incredibly difficult to describe, depending on the audience.
For most, the concept sounds like nothing but complex scientific jargon, with some even refusing to talk about it based on the name alone. Yet, for those familiar with the scientific method, this concept is fairly simple to grasp.
It is difficult to fully explain it without referring to Wikipedia for a relatively dry rundown and history that far escapes the interest and attention of anyone but the most committed.
So, why not skip straight to a simpler example instead of reading the Wikipedia article? After all, it has many practical applications.
A story of a knight
Let’s say you were a knight in the Medieval era and you were looking for a new set of plate armour with your newfound wealth (knights did buy their own armour).
As you walk into Drogo’s armoury, he greets you and ushers you towards his armour display. You tell him you’re looking for the sturdiest piece of armour—something indestructible to any weapon known by man, regardless of price. He gives you a sly grin, goes to the back of his shop, and brings out a set of strange armour you’ve never seen in your life. He attests that it is completely invulnerable to damage and that it was forged from a powerful, legendary ore.
You are not convinced. He pores over every small detail, talking about the perfectly-balanced composition of materials he’s used while throwing countless marketing buzzwords at you. Still not convinced.
He shows you all the 5-star reviews on his wall from real satisfied customers. You swear some of them have the same handwriting.
Running out of patience, you try and tap the armour hoping it will give you a feel for its strength. Drogo’s eyes widen as he hastily pulls it away, refusing to let you test it. “What are you trying to do!?”, he exclaims. You are amused, didn’t he claim it was indestructible?
After being shooed away, you continue your search for a new set of armour and come across Wilkin’s armoury.
Wilkin greets you with a friendly smile, and you tell him that you’re looking for the strongest set of armour money can buy.
He brings out something that looks like it was made of the same material as the one Drogo showed you before.
Before you can even say anything, he grabs the largest war hammer you’ve ever seen and swings the spike at the chestplate with incredible force. The sound is deafening, but you notice something that immediately grabs your attention: the armour was completely undamaged.
You are immediately convinced. You hand him the payment and make your way back with the new set of armour.
Unfortunately, you die the next week, because it turns out enemies prefer to stab you through the gaps in your plating instead of trying to penetrate it with their swords. The End.
The Devil’s Advocate
So what has this got to do with falsifiability and playing the devil’s advocate? In our story, Drogo represents someone who has a belief or opinion about something, but refuses to let anyone actually test it. Religion, tradition, and other similarly-rigid beliefs come to mind:
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
Anonymous
Wilkin, on the other hand, represents what someone familiar with the scientific method might do instead, and is willing to test his beliefs even if he risks breaking them. Even if it breaks, he can use that information to figure out where the weaknesses lie, helping him forge something even stronger next time.
It doesn’t mean that the beliefs that may never be questioned are weak. In our story, Drogo’s armour may very well have been as strong as Wilkin’s given that they seem to share the same material, but we will never know because he’s never let anyone test it. Even if he had tested it himself, he may not have swung at it with all his might for fear of accidentally breaking it.
If something can be falsified—if an argument is made in a way it can be broken—we should try to break it. Arguments, unlike people, have a very peculiar trait: what kills it makes it stronger. It will not be exactly the same argument, but rather a better, improved version with less and less weaknesses each time it is reborn.
If the goal is to present the most accurate, factual model of the world via a collection of beliefs and nothing we have so far perfectly models it, why do we cling on to our old beliefs?
In addition, due to the problems of induction, we may never have absolute certainty that our model is the correct model; we can only know of its accuracy using probabilistic methods—no amount of white swans will prove that black swans do not exist, but we can become very certain.
The best model we can have is one reborn from being destroyed, and destroyed, until it holds up to even the strongest arguments we have. Even then, there is no guarantee it will never be reborn again in future. This is why I like science, as there will always be opportunity for progress. Hypotheses and theories invite people to break them by any possible means, engaging a level of creativity so intense it can only be described as “thrilling”.
Playing the devil’s advocate even for your own arguments, then, helps ensure you have the strongest possible position regardless of what others may present. Arguments are not about winning—if you win with a factually incorrect argument, you both lose. I may be able to convince a senior that mobile phones run on squid ink purely because I’m better at arguing and making ludicrous claims seem legitimate, but no one wins from that encounter. They now have a new, factually incorrect belief and I’ve either proven that I’m an immoral, heartless moron or—assuming I genuinely believe mobile phones run on squid ink—I’ve continued my belief in something factually incorrect, making us both losers.
The objective is the truth. Taking an unfalsifiable, defensive stance to ensure your beliefs may never be questioned is usually a strong indicator that the belief doesn’t correspond to reality.
Closing thoughts
The knight’s story, as with all analogies, falls apart at a certain point. In the case of unfalsifiability, Drogo would have to have displayed his armour using a hologram to ensure it cannot be interacted with unlike in the story, where he only asserts that it may not be questioned without removing the ability to question it entirely. That said, not all things that may never be questioned are tautologies—circular reasoning: a common strategy for unfalsifiability—and Drogo serves to represent these claims.
TIP: if you’re curious about how you can deal with similarly unquestionable yet questionable claims in your everyday lives, try giving them a taste of their own medicine. Remember: if they agree with the logic they’re using, they can’t question you, so you’re free to make up whatever you want. No rules! Any grounds they use to dismiss you can be used back at them with equal effectiveness. It’s fun, but unfortunately it does get old eventually and you start ignoring them instead… visiting a prison may be fun at first, but I wouldn’t want to stay there for the rest of my life.