You know Darwin right? That guy who thought up the theory of evolution. Is he right or is he wrong? A continued debate that I fear will never end. We all have our own theories about evolution.
Theories cover everything in life. You think you know how (a part of) life works. There is a lot of theory on running a successful blog, making that illusive online income and in other areas like brewing your morning cup of coffee and the ideal line through a corner with a motorcycle. There is nothing in life that someone hasn’t developed a theory about. There is nothing in life that nobody preaches about.
Looking for theories
Internet is absolutely full of theories. Among the more popular are those about passive incomes, low-hour workweeks, location independence and rocking on the social media. These theories get written down in blogs and circulated through ebooks and membership sites. So these theories seem to be correct. You can generate an income this way or become a social media rockstar. Thousands of subscribers are proof of that.
Internet hasn’t always been here (Yes I know it’s shocking, what did all those people do with their time before the internet.) and so they had books and journals to publish their theories in. It actually still is the best place to look for good scientific theory backed by scientific research. I have more trust in something that is published in Nature than what is published on the Huffington Post. Likewise I have more trust in scientific papers than what you can read on Wikipedia. Last but not least books are better than blogs.
Theories are omnipresent. But they are just theories until you prove them.
Proving a theory
Going back to Darwin, will anyone ever be able to prove he was right? There is evidence everywhere around you, you just have to open your eyes. Or so you would think. There is enough out there that doesn’t conflict with Darwin’s theory, and so far nobody has come with a sound falsification, that is, something that shows Darwins theory on evolution is wrong.
A classic to show what I mean here is “All swans are white”, a very nice theory and in most parts of the world nobody has ever seen a swan that’s not white, excluding cygnets who are greyish but will turn white when they mature. If all swans are white, then what’s this:
Cygnus atratus
Let’s just ignore it and maybe it will go away. All swans are white! That’s how it works with most people, presented with clear proof that a theory is wrong they will persist in believing their theory. Even though this animal has a scientific name and everything. Feed it and it will come closer. Try to come to close it’s offspring and it will attack you. “The truth hurts” gets a whole new meaning while you rush to hospital for stitches.
Critical Rationalism
Presenting theories and “proof” is what scientists try to do. Bloggers try to do the same, marketing people and sales people are even worse. Presenting all kinds of “proof” that what they are telling you actually works. Well, of course it works for them! They did it that way or at least say they did and now you’re eager to adopt the latest method and you’re sure that it will work for you too. But not all theories are as sound as Darwin’s.
Enter Karl Popper, a philosopher who lived in the 20th century. He rejected classical empiricism (knowledge through experiments) and suggested to think the other way round. Trying to prove a theory wrong instead of trying to prove it right.
The black swan is the perfect example, just one black swan will shoot down the theory that all swans are white. It’s your choice to look away or not.
Hitting yourself with a hammer will hurt. But how do you know that hitting yourself the next time will hurt as well? You can hit yourself to find out of course, that’s empirical proof that it did hurt. But to prove the next hit will hurt you’d have to hit yourself again. You won’t like where that’s going. The other way round, thinking like Popper you give the theory that hitting yourself with a hammer hurts and you challenge anyone to prove your theory wrong. At the very least it provides you with less discomfort.
Stepping on dreams
Being a critic isn’t a very rewarding, glorious job but someone has to do it. Especially when everyone is blinded by theories and promises of glory, riches or eternal life if only they follow a few simple rules that seem to have worked for whoever it is that makes the promises.
Should you stop dreaming? Of course not! Just keep reality in mind and try and poke holes in things that seem to good to be true. They always are.
As ever, a good read.
I think it would have been better if you had made the distinction between a hypothesis and a theory, in the scientific sense at least. The latter is supported by evidence whilst the former is yet to be proven. The theory of evolution is a prime example of a (scientific) theory: almost all scientists (specifically biologists) agree that evolution is as true as any scientific theory gets. The only serious debate that is still ongoing entails the specific mechanics of evolution. Creationism/Intelligent design (wich is basically the same thing) is an example of a hypothesis: it is in no way supported by empirical or logical evidence.
I know this faulty interpretation of what actually defines a theory (again: in the scientific sense) is common mistake, but since a lot of arguments supporting all sorts of pseudo-sciences rely on this I feel it should be pointed out.
Thanks for the comment Erik and thanks for pointing out that difference,
I’d have to agree most of the way save one small thing. In medical research at least, it’s quite impossible to prove something beyond doubt. There are so many factors that influence any experiment that there is no certainty as to what exactly caused the effect. A lot like the specific mechanics of evolution. Is it evidence if we haven’t taken in account every single influence on the evidence? Improbable != impossible and so agreeing on something doesn’t always make it the truth. For all we know there is a “blind watchmaker” out there laughing his head off at us and our silly theories. How can we ever be absolutely sure? Are we ever sure about something? Logic indeed helps a lot in trying to discover the truth, but on occasion it’s the letting go of all logic that is needed to discover what actually is.
From a Zen approach I can’t even be sure that the earth is indeed a sphere (more or less). I haven’t experienced it myself after all.
It’s a delicate balance, this way of thinking and it can get mighty confusing with you guys at times. (Note: Erik is a fellow student and so of course gets training in scientific thinking)
Thanks again Erik, enough food for thought for me to think about :)
This doesn’t strike me as a meaningful distinction though. It’s precisely Popper’s point that we can have all the evidence in the world, and yet *still* turn out to be wrong.
This seems to suggest that because many people think something is right, we should consider it right, especially if those who think it is right call themselves scientists. This strikes me as a poor methodology.
To the extent creationism can be tested, it’s false. To the extent it can’t be tested, it’s not scientific — or at least it’s not an empirical theory. I’ve never seriously looked at intelligent design, but as I understand it there are several possible criticisms of the theory available that are not so readily available when one considers Darwinism.
As an avid Darwinian, I have to say, we should never rest on our laurels, but continue to try and look for ways to test the theory and bring criticism against it. Not make artificial distinctions that socially elevate it.
Popper point is that ultimately it’s our methodology that is important, not how we label each *guess* good or bad. For Popper a scientists is a person who continuously tries to subject his theories/guesses/hypotheses to rigorous testing and criticism.
I’m only making the distinction to combat those people who seem to think that any random blabbering of any random person is equal to a real scientific theory. This theory, whilst not the truth per se, has however been supported by evidence and has survived all attempts at falsification. These two things should not be compared 1:1.
I did not mean to say that if something is believed by a great many people it is more “truthlike” than something wich is not. This is an obvious fallacy. But if a theory is supported by evidence and people have not been able to falsify it as of yet it is most likely closer to the truth than something wich cannot claim these things.
Again I would like to stress that I believe it is hard, if not impossible, to know anything for certain. And because of this I agree with you that we should continue to test our theories and our hypotheses in order to keep on improving our knowledge of the world and get closer to the actual truth, even though we most likely won’t ever reach this point.
In the end, I agree with the ideas of critical rationalism on the most part but I do, once more, think a distinction has its uses.
I do hope I’ve expressed myself more clearly this time around…
PS: Christiaan, isn’t “The Blind Watchmaker” a book written by Richard Dawkins to specifically prove Darwinism? :P
What I took away from your post was not so much information about proving or disproving hypotheses. I think you’re trying to make the point that it’s not realistic for every single person to make money writing e-books, or working 4 hours a week, or having a location independent business. The people who tout those things often lay the onus on the individual person. If you can’t do it, you are either not motivated, you don’t believe you can do it, you have emotional blocks, etc. But those things are by their very nature rare. If every single person had a location independent business, how would you buy groceries? Where would you get your car gassed up and repaired? It’s not practical for everyone, and putting it out there as if it is, getting the hopes up of people who dislike their jobs, is irresponsible, imho.