Now, whether psychology today is considered a hard science or a social science or some other kind might be debatable. But you won’t find many mainstream thinkers who consider it pseudo-science. But still, nearly a hundred years ago, when Popper was reaching these conclusions, no modern philosopher had really characterized what “science” truly meant, and what the implications were for the pursuit of knowledge.
The traditional understanding of the scientific method, going all the way back to the ancient Greeks, relied on the belief that, to look at this world with a scientific eye is to observe with no preconceived notions. You simply look, see what you see, and then develop hypotheses based on those observations. So, you look at a swan, and you notice it’s white. You look at another swan; it’s white too. You look at enough white swans, and eventually you form the hypothesis that all swans are white. This is what Freud said he was doing, observing relationships. But instead of it being the relationship between swans and colors, it was between particular human phenomena and human behavior.
But Popper argued that everyone has preconceived notions of some kind. We all start with a hunch, whether we admit it or not. After all, what you decide to observe is determined by what you already care about enough to observe in the first place, and the fact that you care about it so much also means that you already have some beliefs about it. So, what does that tell us about Freud? Popper became convinced that methods like his (Freud) that only served to confirm beliefs were pseudo-science, and they can be used to prove anything.
Consider the existence of Santa Claus. If I try to find evidence of Santa’s existence, I’m gonna find it, easily. The world is filthy with evidence of Santa Claus. There are presents under the tree on Christmas morning. There’s the guy at the mall, and then there are all those songs, and stories, and TV shows, and movies, they combine to confirm your belief in Santa. But Popper would argue that it’s only by seeking to disprove Santa’s existence that you can demonstrate his unreality. So the question is, when we begin to test a theory, are we looking to confirm it, or disconfirm it?
This is the key point, for Popper science disconfirms, while pseudo-science confirms. He elaborated on this insight by establishing a series of distinct conclusions about science and knowledge. First, he said, it’s easy to find confirmation of a theory if you’re looking for it. Remember the presents under the tree? If you’re looking for proof that Santa exists, you’re not likely to keep searching for contradictory evidence after that.
Second, confirmation should only count if it comes from a risky prediction, ones that could actually destroy your theory. Because Popper observed that every good scientific theory is prohibitive, it rules things out. This might sound strange, because no one wants to be wrong, but Popper says that every false belief we discover is actually good, because that gets us that much closer to believing only true things.
Next, Popper argued that the only genuine test of a theory is one that’s attempting yo falsify it. So, if you were to test for Santa’s reality, your method would require you to try to prove that he doesn’t exist, rather than proving that he does. So, you stay up all night, waiting to catch him delivering his presents. This is risky, because if the person who actually shows up to put presents under the tree is your Dad, then you’ve destroyed the Santa hypothesis.
On a very similar note, Popper also pointed out that irrefutable theories are not scientific. If it can’t be tested, then your theory doesn’t have much value. Like, you can only confirm that Santa is real by doing everything in your power to prove that he’s imaginary, and then failing to do so. So you need to be tugging on Santa beards at the mall, you need to investigate reports of Santa sightings, and other weirdos caught breaking into peoples’ houses through their chimneys. If you want to be able to really trust in your belied in Santa, in a genuinely scientific way, you need to put your belief to the test, in every way you can imagine. This is where Popper says that you have earned the right to call a theory scientific.
And finally, once you’ve disproven your theory, Popper said, you need to be willing to give it up. I mean, you can still cling to Santa myth, even after catching your Dad putting gifts under the tree, by accepting his lie that Santa had dropped the gifts off earlier, and that he was just “helping.” But, if you’re a scientist, you’re gonna have to be willing to let your beliefs go, accept the evidence, move on.
And this is the modern scientific thinking that we accept today; testable, refutable, falsifiable. You don’t seek to prove scientific hypotheses right, you only prove them wrong. A lot of this might seem so obvious that maybe you’re wondering why we’re talking about it. But that’s how right Popper was, he was one of those rare philosophers who actually managed to hit on an idea so right that we won’t even really argue it anymore.
