Why Unfalsifiable Theories are Less Moral

Theories that are not tethered to the ability to empirically prove them wrong are really fun to play with, but they can cause harm and become authoritarian (e.g., critical theory).

Armchair theories are often untestable

There is something moral about a good theory. Theories that can be independently tested help us build things and thrive. Those theories that are so precisely stated that they are always and forever at risk of falsification or modification. Theories like memory consolidation, reconsolidation, spreading activation theory in my domain of memory come to mind. Most physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering theories in textbooks also come to mind, and similarly in most medical and psychological science theories. Theories that explain quantum mechanics, the periodic table, cell organelles, tensile strength, germ theory, and brain function might be examples. Those theories so tightly tied to empirical observation that it is difficult to separate the theory.

Of course, there are degrees of testability, especially in my field of psychology, but so long as there is some degree of falsifiability in a theory or approach the more moral it is. The more testable the better.

Falsifiable theories are moral because they often help human thriving and that maps onto the ethic goodness. They also do well on that other primary ethic: truth. They also comply well with the ethic of freedom because people are free to try to disprove the theories and no authoritarianism is needed to force compliance with testable theories. Some of the theories also have a simple beauty to them as well, and in that regard falsifiable theories are at the pinnacle of having all four major ethics: freedom, truth, goodness, and beauty.

Unfalsifiable theories, in contrast, can be horrors. Some do have some ethical appeal in one or two of the four major ethics. For example, some untestable theories might be beautiful for some, although I would argue that that might be a shallow beauty, and the ugliness might only be noticed by those that go deep. Some unfalsifiable theories may also aspire to goodness, although there may be only surface level goodness. Unfalsifiable theories will always trail testable ones in terms of the ethics truth and freedom.

Let us deal with some examples of unfalsifiable theories and how they lack in key ethics, and are less moral than testable alternatives. Let us talk about critical theory, a topic an admirable colleague of mine is currently writing about, and is in part an impetus for this article. Critical theory is neo Marxist grievance-related critique of capitalism and western culture that posits oppressor and oppressed social groups, and explains the world in terms of identity groups and systems of power. Critical theory is not falsifiable, and I will explain why in a few sentences. First, critical theory was born out of two unfalsifiable theories (Marxism and Freudianism: see Popper, 1963), which is not a good start but I should be more specific. Second, it is almost impossible to disprove the idea that (invisible) oppression is the cause of income inequality or group disparities. At least it is impossible to disprove to a dogmatic critical theorist. Third, there is no conceivable empirical data that could disprove the conspiratorial theory that systems of power were deliberately constructed for the reasons of oppression. Fourth, the constructs are so vague that the theory has not boundary conditions, and in fact can be applied to any domain. Most of the constructs within the theory are not measurable. A whole essay is needed to explain why critical theory is unfalsifiable, but let us be brief here.

Having established critical theory is unfalsifiable, let us look at how moral it is. First, it is lacking in the ethic of truth because it is not formulated in a way in which it will accumulate knowledge over time. In fact, it is in the realm of either not even wrong or in fact being an untrue account of how the world works. I think it is the latter: it is simply not how modern humanistic western democracies work, and it is an incorrect cynical take on modern life. Critical theory is not moral because it is not true.

In fact, critical theory is not a “theory” in the scientific sense of the word because it is both untestable and has not been tested multiple times with a view to falsification, and survived such falsification attempts. So the use of the word “theory” is not moral because it is not true that it is a theory.

Is critical theory high on the ethic of freedom? Not really, not now. Perhaps it was a free and exiting theory as it developed in the early years of the Frankfurt school, and maybe it still feels free to those who believe in it. But to those of us who are critics of it, we notice how critical theorists have tendencies towards authoritarianism. Because it is such a poor theory, the only ways to perpetuate it seems to be with indoctrination in education, cancel culture, incentivising compliance, and by forcing people to say it’s buzzwords and catchphrases. As with all unfalsifiable theories, I worry that when they do not work, the only way true believers can perpetuate them is via authoritarianism. Critical theory, like Marxism before it, is low on the ethic of freedom.

What about critical theory and the ethic of goodness? This is probably what attracts people to it, because on its surface it seems to be a very morally empathetic and good set of theories. After all, critical theory emphasizes the plight of marginalized identity groups, it seeks to explain income inequality, and it argues against individualism. Some readers may think that at least it scores well on this ethic, goodness. I disagree for the following reasons. I think critical theory is an immiserating set of ideas that encourages young people to feel grievances towards society. It does not provide young people with real skills, it more trains them to feel hard-done-by, and to believe that there are enormous invisible forces that will oppress them. It hardly encourages them to go out and thrive in society, nor to appreciate and love their homeland, their traditions, nor to make good money or raise a family. Critical theory is low on the ethic of goodness because it perpetuates itself by instilling grievance in the young, and it only is really beneficial to those who are able to maintain an academic career writing about it (or those able to use it for gain elsewhere).

Is critical theory beautiful? Well in the sense that it explains everything, some people may be in aesthetic awe in its power to help them understand the world through its lens. But to me, no, it is not beautiful because there is no precision in its constructs. There is a lack of a simple explanation that also contains precise measures. It also assumes cause (e.g., that oppression is the cause of disparities) without evidence, and I find that ugly. I find the obscurantist wording ugly, even though I now understand most of it. It is a vague, obscure, and grievance-encouraging ugly theory.

So that is my working through of the ethics of an example unfalsifiable theory, and how such a theory is lacking in morals. I could do the same for other unfalsifiable theories, such as aspects of Freud, Jung, and maybe even new cults. I hesitate to say religions are unfalsifiable and therefore not moral, because some established religions may have in some strange way evolved with morality over time, and in some organic way evolved into sustainable highly-reproducing and well defended cultures, with morals with moral stories attached. I’m not a moral relativist though—some seem more moral than others from a scientific humanistic perspective.

I appreciate that some people love their untestable theories, and they find a lot of moral solace in them. Some love religion, Jung, Freud, Marx, etc, more than I do and I keep an open mind as to whether there is a bit of wisdom in those. They are often not boring theories at all, and perhaps are more captivating than scientifically verified theories. Nevertheless, if I might make the case for falsifiable and scientific theories, I think they are often the most moral theories of all because many of them score high on truth, freedom, goodness, and beauty. This is why I love science; I like being a scientist, and why I encourage students to choose the falsifiable scientific path when it comes to theory.

For me, the problem with many untestible theories is the following. First, unfalsifiable theories tend to captivate and create a set of true believers. Second, they theory does not work and causes harm. Third, the true believers use mild or strong authoritarianism to cover up failures and to force or incentivize belief or compliance with the theory.

Falsifiable theories are a little less exciting and captivating, attract less attention and fame, get less engagement on social media (with some exceptions), but they are more moral.