Immunised Hypothesis

Other Terms and/or Related Concepts

Special Pleading; double standard; Moving the Goalposts.

Description

The advocate forwards a claim that in practice (or even in theory) cannot be falsified. That is, the proponent might forward a testable hypothesis initially, but then, when evidence is brought to their attention which contradicts their claim, they continue to add on ad hoc explanations; generally refusing to even entertain the idea that their original claim may actually be false (thus exhibiting Simple-Minded Certitude).

Example

Reilly Liebe-Mann is a "emotional healing dream counsellor". He believes that he can interpret dreams to find hidden meanings in a patient's subconscious. He is in the middle of a session with one if his "patients", Turner Knott, who only sees Reilly to humour his parents. They are discussing one of Turner's recent dreams.

Turner continues: “…and the snake was slithering around the floor of my car.”

Reilly offers his interpretation: “Snakes represent transformation, knowledge and wisdom. A snake in a dream is indicative of self-renewal and positive changes.”

Turner points out: “Well things are really stable at the moment. And me? Knowledge? Wisdom? I’m hardly the sharpest knife in the cutlery draw. I don't buy this interpretation.”

Reilly: “Well you didn’t let me finish. The snake also represents hidden fears and worries that are threatening you. Your dream may be alerting you to something in your waking life that you are not aware of or that has not yet surfaced.”

Turner replies: “That really doesn’t sound right at all. Things couldn’t be any better at work, I'm super relaxed…”

Reilly: “Your not thinking along the same lines that I am…, It’s so obvious to me know. Snakes are phallic and symbolise dangerous and forbidden sexuality...”

Turner interrupts: "Can you please get your hand off my thigh?"

Reilly: “Uh, sorry. I was lost for a moment thinking about your dream."

Turner: "Well I actually own a python as a pet. Maybe I was just dreaming about Monty?"

Reilly: "No, I’m sure I’m right about your dream. It’s just that I haven’t yet taken into account the car…”

At this point Reilly continues with ad hoc interpretations. He says excitedly: “Don’t you see! The snake and the car are actually in the dream as red herrings, to throw us off the real message. Herrings are a type of fish, and I had a dream about ice fishing the day before last. But ice fishing represents breaking through a hardened emotional barrier, which is definitely not you. However, fish swim in water, and water is the first part of ‘watermelon’. Pregnant women or women on the verge of their menstrual cycle often dream of such fruits. It all makes sense; your dream is a subconscious cry for help; that you really want to be a young and fertile woman and bare children!”

Turner: "Seriously, how many times do I have to ask you to keep your hands to yourself? And can you please put your shirt back on?”

Discussion

Reilly has continued to interpret the dream in a way that favours his initial hypothesis; Turner is in denial about his true self. No matter what evidence Turner produces to counter this claim, Reilly spins explanation after explanation until his hypothesis is so convoluted that it should be treated with utter disdain. He is in a win-win situation. If Turner never agrees or is never "healed", Reilly can claim Turner is living in denial. His dream interpretations are always correct. It's just that not all patients are open to accepting who they "really are".

However, if it does turn out that Turner is in denial, and he eventually does change we have no reason to assume that the dream he had, and Reilly’s interpretation, was actually correct. It could just be a coincidence, or more upsettingly, with enough "therapy" Turner might be convinced to change, a victim of folie à deux.

It could be argued that the above rejection of dream interpretation - that it is nothing but a waste of time and doesn’t reveal underlying psychological issues - is itself an example of an immunised hypothesis. That no matter what the evidence for dream analysis, we would rejected it as pseudoscientific bunk. But any resemblance between this rejection of dream interpretation, even when it seems to work, and the fallacy Immunised Hypothesis, is a coincidence.

Podcast: Hunting Humbug 101 - Tutorial 02: Falsification

In this second podcast we discuss Falsification and Immunised Hypotheses. Here's the link to direct download https://archive.org/details/HuntingHumbug101Episode1-WhatIsHumbug/02Tutorial02_Falsification.mp3#  

The problem of dismissing induction

I haven't posted for a while so I thought I'd make up for it with an overly long post. It contiues on from this post on David Hume and is based on an essay I wrote a while ago for Philosophy Now.

In The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl Popper outlines what he calls 'the problem of induction'; a 'problem' first demonstrated by David Hume. Induction (in the scientific sense of the word) is the method of generalising a (universal) law or principle after numerous observations and tests have been carried out. For example, every single time I have dropped an object it has fallen towards the centre of the Earth (as the observations). Therefore all dropped objects will always fall towards the centre of the Earth (as the law). What this is saying is that given a large number of observations of X, and if all known Xs are Y, then all unknown Xs are Y as well. Using the term unknown says exactly what the problem is - we do not know! An example from everyday life might be, "I have watched a lot of cricket test matches and as such all cricket balls known to me are red. Therefore all cricket balls unknown to me are red as well." Thus an inductive conclusion is reached; but as soon as I personally witness a one-day match (where the ball is white) I would see this to be false. Popper saw induction as attempting to establish a universal statement from a singular one, or indeed many singular ones. How can we believe something to be universally true when we can only show it to be true a finite number of times? Even a very large number of singular statements or events will not prove a universal one. The only way to prove a universal statement is by testing it an infinite number of times, which is impossible.

_______________
Continues in comments...

Tags: Philosophy

Falsification

If someone proposes some theory about something, could it be tested? Karl Popper argued that science proceeds by refuting false hypotheses, not by confirming true ones. Popper's work has been criticised, but what we can say about Popper's idea of falsification, I believe, is that at the very least, for a hypothesis to be worth consideration it needs to be testable by some method. There needs to be some criteria, some kind of evidence (at least in theory), that would allow us to judge the hypothesis false. The more detail it provides – the better the hypothesis. In turn this means that there is potentially more evidence that would warrant judging it false. If we can find no such evidence, then the explanation looks quite strong. Killing erroneous hypotheses is the paradox by which science proceeds. As Popper said:

Our belief in any particular natural law cannot have a safer basis than our unsuccessful critical attempts to refute it.

Falsification should be applied to any idea about how the physical world works. Any hypothesis about the physical world should be falsifiable. The definition for 'hypothesis' I give my students is:

A predictive statement that through experimental investigation could be shown to be false.

Applying falsification to the non-physical world - eg politics and other human affairs - is a little more problematic. However, it's always worth having the idea of falsification in the back of your mind when someone proposes an explanation for something.

When a claim is not falsifiable, you are dealing with an Immunised Hypothesis. Claims about the physical world that are based on immunised hypotheses are pseudo-scientific. Examples of pseudo-sciences that Popper became suspicious of are psychoanalytic beliefs such as those of Freud and political Ideologies such as Marxism. These theories can never go wrong, as they are sufficiently flexible to accommodate any type of new behaviour. No observation or test can show these theories to be false, as their proponents are able to invent "just-so" stories to account for any possible behaviour. These theories give the appearance of being able to explain everything, but in fact they explain nothing, as they can rule out nothing. Of course there are other pseudo-scientific beliefs we can easily include with the previously mentioned ones - intelligent design, astrology, fortune telling, tarot cards…

In this podcast we discuss Falsification and Immunised Hypotheses.


Here's the link to direct download: Tutorial 02 Falsification.mp3 (20 mins & 18mb) and you subscribe here: http://huntinghumbug101.podbean.com/feed/.

____________________
Tagged - Fallacy Skepticism, Science, Philosophy, Falsification, Hypothesis, Theory.