Just read an article in @aeonmag about the abuses of Popperian falsification in Western society from Charlotte Sleigh ( @KentCHOTS). I've seen this attachment to falsification play out repeatedly.

A thread from a social scientist's perspective:
(1/13) https://aeon.co/essays/how-popperian-falsification-enabled-the-rise-of-neoliberalism

Sleigh summarizes Popper's central idea about falsification. This is the way that I was taught it at an early age.

Falsification a necessary component of science. If one is not trying to falsify something or make their claims falsifiable, they are not doing science.

(2/13)

From a social science perspective, T-Tests and Chi-Square tests are the building blocks for more complex regression models. They are "mini" experiments.

There is no way to show a lack of a statistical relationship in these tests definitely disproves anything.

(3/13)

EX - There is a robust link between poverty and crime. If someone does a study showing there is not a link, this does not disprove the general claim. It may be that measures of poverty were different. Or even crime. Maybe there were confounding variables. And so on.

(4/13)

The reasonable approach in this situation is to see the contrary evidence not as disproving the claim, but as a sign of further inquiry.

Sleigh writes that philosophers have shown the flaws in adhering to a norm of falsification in a natural science context.

(5/13)

Sleigh discusses the appeal of Popper.

One reason she doesn't touch upon is that it was simply how we were taught. It is hard to disabuse oneself of notions learned at impressionable ages.

But she focuses, however, on other reasons.

(6/13)

One reason is falsification's political utility.

She writes about how tobacco companies used Popperian ideas to cast doubt on the link between tobacco and cancer. We see this in modern climate deniers as well:

(7/13)

In a social science context, I see this in research on racism and sexism. Scholars can generate 100s of studies showing links between one's racial or gender background, and outcomes in life. However, *one* study is then used to "disprove" all the others.

A prime...

(8/13)

...example of this is the use of research by Roland Fryer showing no racial differences in police killings. Fryer's research should add to our knowledge, not used to *disprove* a claim that has been supported in other studies.

Another reason falsification...

(9/13)

...is appealing is because scientists can adopt an "ostensibly" neutral approach. This absolves them from whatever human misery is associated with their work. This cleared the way for research into eugenics (just following the data) without concern for its implications.

(10/13)

But science is anything but neutral! As Sleigh writes:

(11/13)

In the final analysis, our linking of science to falsification has caused incalculable human misery. While I am thinking in terms of racism, sexism, and other sociological problems. Sleigh points to problems that are equally if not more pressing.

(12/13)

This was a great essay @aeonmag by Charlotte Sleigh ( @KentCHOTS). It would be a great read for anyone interested in understanding our current epistemic crisis, and an especially good read in a graduate research methods course. #AcademicTwitter

(13/13) https://aeon.co/essays/how-popperian-falsification-enabled-the-rise-of-neoliberalism