A mental experiment.

'Falsifiability' is a scientific test. A scientific theory or prediction must list a set of conditions which, if observed or proved, would make the said theory untenable and thus, void, or at least in need of upgrading by introducing certain exceptions or constants to be taken into consideration while using it to predict the world. It was first introduced to the modern world by Karl Popper.

While there have been some exceptions to the requirement for a falsification for every and any scientific theory, it should suffice the layperson to know that most things s/he will come in contact with are supported by this litmus test in the philosophy of science.

What could be some examples of falsifiability? The most common example is about a claim that 'All swans are white', which can very easily be shown as false by the production of the evidence of the existence of a single non-white swan. In Karl Popper's own words, "No number of sightings of white swans can prove the theory that all swans are white. The sighting of just one black one may disprove it." meaning that as rational beings, every claim we make about the observable world (at the very least) must have at least one built-in falsifiability criterion without which the claim is either incomplete or untrue.

This is mostly applied to science, and scientists spend their lifetimes looking for flaws and errors, examples and observations that can prove a theory wrong, or in need for modification. Those that succeed are lauded, feted, and some even win prizes or have the new theory or modification named after them. The race and effort for proving a scientific theory wrong is an ongoing and never-finishing contest, given that it is never possible to prove the negative to 100% accuracy.

But this post is not about that, and I do hope that those of my more philosophically and scientifically minded friends who wish to explain to me how falsifiability has limited applications in certain settings may refrain from showering their wisdom here, since the object of this post is not to debate falsifiability, but to introduce the concept to those of my friends who discuss and debate politics with me.

So, with that preamble (if you have a Marathi friend, ask what "नमनाला घडाभर तेल" means), let me press on to the actual point of this post, and it is this observation: As a thinking human (are there any other, given that we are homo sapiens, or homo sapiens, for those that have no other task than to bisect pili with semantics), you ought to have criteria for falsifiability of your beliefs as much as scientists would have for their theories. This means I should be able to have an answer to my question of, "What would make me change my mind about XYZ?"

For example, my own political views have followed an arc of experiences, reading, debating, and learning from all of it, and at each step, wherever I have changed my stance on something, it is because my then held beliefs were falsified by something I saw, heard, read, or felt.

I realise that most of us have deeply and sincerely held beliefs when it comes to politics or economics or philosophy or supernatural or whatever. I want to ask if any one of you have examined these critically and consciously to ask the one thing or the series of things that you need to see, read about, learn, hear, or feel happening for you to change your mind from these beliefs, whether about minorities (say, Muslims), about authoritarian strongmen (say Modi), about nationalism, about free markets (or socialism or its uncle, communism), about social justice, about democracy, about affirmative action, about gender issues, about privilege, about money, about god, about religion, and so many other things we think we have figured out, but haven't.

When was the last time you did that?

And when you did, what was your falsification criterion/criteria?