#problem of demarcation

[nicolae]

SetThings - Falsifiability

https://www.setthings.com/en/falsifiability/

Falsifiability

Falsifiability (also referred to as the use of refutability) was introduced by Karl Popper and is considered an important concept in epistemology, allowing to draw a line between scientific theories and those that are not. An assertion, a hypothesis, is … Read More

[thenuanceddebater]

Musings: Karl Popper and the Problem of Demarcation and Patriarchy Theory

This is a post I’ve been thinking about for some time now. In one of my classes I encountered a philosopher by the name of Karl Popper who was instrumental in the current understanding of how Freud, Marx, Engels, and Adler are not considered science in the same way as Einstein, Hawking, or Bohr would be. And the reason for that is becasue of the principle of falsifiability and the problem of demarcation. 

Now, the principle of falsifiability is actually quite simple. It states that in order for a theory to be considered scientific (or inherently valid through empirical evidence and evaluation and thus the scientific method) it needed to be able to be proven false. Why not confirmed? Well, becasue another philosopher David Hume argued that it was inherently impossible for any scientific theory to be confirmed as it was impossible to fully understand a law of nature solely through empirical reasoning (as in order to confirm a law you would need an infinite number of examples which is impossible). Hume also stated that any sort of assumption on nature and it’s constancy was also illogical as it was entirely conceivable that we could be misunderstanding the laws of nature as we cannot fully observe them. Thus, we still have the theory of gravity as opposed to the fact of gravity. But gravity’s influence on individual bodies is a fact, just not a scientific one. 

Anyway, Popper surmised that the nature of a scientific theory was merely a possibility that had yet to be prove false. Which actually gets us two significant aspects: 1. That scientific law was changeable as even the most established theories could be proven false and 2. That in order for a scientific theory to be a scientific theory it must be able to be proven false. Or perhaps even more importantly, that if a theory could not be proven false it was not scientific. It was for this reason that  Popper confirmed Einstein as science (as his theories could all be tested and disproven should they fail the test) but denied Freud as science simply becasue his psychoanalysis was on broad that it encompassed it’s own failure state. An individual acting in the most selfish and self-aggrandizing way and an individual acting completely selflessly could both be explained by Freud in equal measure without any degree of difficulty whatsoever. Thus, Popper surmised that Freud's theory was not scientific as there was no way to prove it false through observation. The theory was too broad to be properly scientific. 

Now, why do I mention this today? Because there are quite a few new theories that have taken on the same sort of scientific significance that Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis has, but on a more social scale. Unlike Freud, but like Marx these theories tend to claim that they evidence a particular societal rule or norm as opposed to a particular natural rule or norm. But, people still treat these theories as if they are immutable and correct despite the fact that they are admittedly non-scientific and impossible to empirically disprove. 

For example, let’s take patriarchy theory from Feminism which states that all men are inherently oppressive to all women, and that all men benefit from a system of oppression whether or not they are constantly oppressing women, or even whether or not they are constantly aware of the oppression of women. Now, on the surface this seems to be a theory that is capable of being proven false. But if we get into some of the reasoning, it really is not. For example, the wage gap whether or not it exists, the high percentages of female rape victims (mostly due to gendered rape laws), and really any policy or outcome that benefits men as a group more than it does women as a group are seen as prrof of the existence of the patriarchy. However, societal disadvantages that men face such as a lower percentage chance of receiving custody of children, high rates of male suicide, and issues of male victims of both rape and domestic violence being ignored are said to also be proof of the patriarchy as the patriarchy harms both men and women. Thus, two things that inherently opposite in nature are said to be proof of the same thing. The theory encompasses and subsumes its negation. 

An even more obvious example would be how women who support the tenets of patriarchy theory and women who oppose patriarchy theory are treated as proof of why the patriarchy exists. Women who agree that a patriarchy exists are held up as enlightened individuals-- women who have seen through the veneer of equality to the truth of male oppression. Their numbers are paraded out as a sort of ad populum argument to patriarchy theory’s validity. Women that reject the notion of patriarchy theory are not regarded as evidence against patriarchy theory but instead as yet more evidence for patriarchy theory. They have “internalized misogyny” which is evidence of male oppression and therefore evidence of the patriarchy. Again, the theory subsumes its negation. 

So, what does all of this mean? That patriarchy theory is unscientific? Didn’t we already know that? Well, yes but that’s not all. It means that patriarchy theory is unscientific, but also that patriarchy theory is inherently irrefutable with empirical evidence and that no empirical test exists that could ever falsify patriarchy theory. In other words, patriarchy theory is so broad that it is impossible to get rid of. Any piece of evidence that one believes to be against patriarchy theory can be seamlessly incorporated as proof of the very theory that one is intending to disprove. Just like Marxism, just like Freud, and just like Adler patriarchy theory has become less a science and more a religion. And its true believers may be impossible to sway with facts and evidence.