Falsifiability

In the first essay of my blog, I addressed the role of falsifiability as it relates to scientific concepts. This includes the pseudoscientific concept of so-called mental illness ("the epithet").

As a refresher for my audience, it is a foundational scientific principle that all scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable. This is integral to the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Essentially we need to be able to prove our own ideas to be wrong in order for them to be considered right. This is a form of applied Epistemology as these foundational scientific principles properly incorporate principles of Epistemology.

All of our modern technology has been built on proper scientific knowledge production. The reality is the internet, cell phones, refrigeration, and other modern technologies function because they have been produced with proper science.

At some point in the development of all of our modern gadgets, there were researchers who formulated falsifiable hypotheses. They then conducted proper experimentation on these falsifiable hypotheses to test them.

After extensive amounts of research conducted over the course of modern humans' interest in science, we have a modern world filled with properly produced gadgetry.

This essay series has been made possible through proper scientific knowledge production. I'm using my cell phone to connect to a network which in turn connects me to the internet. This allows me to take my ideas and share them with the entire world.

This is the power of proper knowledge production. This is why I appreciate Epistemology deeply. The reality is when knowledge is produced properly it can be built upon. In other words when your cell phone works properly you can install new apps on it. If your cell phone did not work properly you could not install a new app.

The cell phone is an example of tangible properly produced knowledge. That is, the cell phone does not remain merely an idea in someone's mind, rather it is built with raw materials into a tangible form.

However proper knowledge production is not limited to tangible forms. The institution of science and our modern emphasis on rationality demonstrate that it is also important to produce intangible knowledge properly.

One cannot hold the scientific method in their hand. One cannot identify a specific location in the universe where the scientific method exists. Nevertheless the scientific method is one of the most important intangible concepts in our modern society. Indeed it forms the conceptual foundation of our zeitgeist.

Modern society is so obsessed with science that anyone who merely claims to be a scientist and can back that up with letters after their name, can be assumed to produce knowledge properly.

It is a social fervor that shares many traits with autocracies of the past. Indeed when individuals or small groups on a quest for power realize how to generate social fervor, the seeds of an autocracy are sown.

When average citizens in a society do not bother to ensure that their leaders are properly producing knowledge, we have put ourselves on a trajectory for an autocracy.

We have a common saying in standard American English which relates to the apparent powerlessness of the citizenry to control legitimized state power.

"Who will police the police?"

This phrase underscores the daily challenges that face the citizenry in modern society. We recognize that sometimes legitimized state power runs amok. We also recognize that in a civil society there should be some way to control legitimized state power run amok.

Thus the citizenry commiserates with each other when they see instances of police brutality, "Who will police the police?"

When it is a tangible phenomenon such as an individual or group of law enforcement officers, the tangible nature of the phenomenon makes policing the police a legitimate venture.

In other words because we can locate police officers we can figure out socially acceptable ways to control them.

However the challenge is exponentially greater when we attempt to police intangible concepts and not tangible reality. The challenge for those who wish to change the unjust influence of the epithet is answering the question

"How do we police a concept?"

To compound this challenge, the concept is maintained not just by institutions that promote it, but also by the citizenry that accepts the gobbledygook of the institutions. Furthermore the physical nature of the institutions themselves, that is, brick and mortar buildings that serve as workplaces for individuals, further entrench the concept into the minds of people.

In other words the citizenry presumes that because a facility such as a "mental hell-th 'hospital'" exists, then the concept that gave rise to it must also be properly produced knowledge.

Such is the challenge of any scientific revolution, as articulated by Kuhn and other scientific philosophers.

When the citizenry has not familiarized themselves with the principles of Epistemology nor the basic principles of science itself, then the institution of science has an open door to mislead the citizenry. This is exactly what the modern mental hell-th system does: mislead an ignorant public.

Part of the intention of my essay series is to dispel public ignorance and empower the citizenry to properly question the institution of science especially as it relates to the epithet.

As my ideas are properly produced in accordance with Epistemological principles, their benefit is not limited to the epithet. Rather my ideas may be applied to the broad institution of science itself.

There are entirely too many scientists out there who exploit public ignorance and mislead the citizenry. As a result we now have the entire Western world that believes that the epithet is properly produced knowledge. Sadly, those involved in the mental hell-th system have little incentive to correct public ignorance. Indeed maintaining public ignorance is job security in the mental hell-th system.

At this point allow me to transition to explaining why the epithet is not properly produced knowledge, and thus not a scientific concept.

Scientific concepts are falsifiable. There is no getting around that. The only way the modern mental hell-th system has gotten around that is by convincing an ignorant public that somehow the basic principles of science and Epistemology do not apply to their branch of knowledge.

Clever linguistic tricks are used in order to deceive a public that thinks that anything that is presented in the language of science must be properly produced knowledge.

In other words if a scientist is talking scientifically then it must be true.

Such is the mentality of an ignorant public that desires to remain ignorant.

The epithet is not falsifiable. In practice one can formulate a hypothesis to understand this lack of falsifiability.

"John is mentally sick"

In order to falsify this we need to be able to prove an intangible reality that John is not mentally sick. Normally in science we have some sort of technology or instrument that can measure a state of health and compare John's state to the standardized state of health. In other words if we know what mentally healthy is then we can falsify the hypothesis that "John is mentally sick."

The same would be true for the inverse hypothesis.

"John is mentally healthy"

Once again this requires that we be able to prove an intangible reality that John is mentally sick. If we have yet to find a tangible mental sickness to falsify our hypotheses, then concept is not a scientific one. Rather the epithet is a linguistic phenomenon.

Indeed epithets have always been linguistic phenomena and not scientific ones.

Scientific concepts require falsifiability. There is no getting around that no matter how inconvenient it may be for an ignorant public or a greedy scientist.

Linguistic concepts do not require falsifiability. Language is not held to the same high level of rigor that science is. We cannot produce a functional cell phone simply because we wish it to be true or try to talk it into existence ("I wish I had a cell phone right now").

This level of rigor does not apply to linguistic phenomena. Words are literally made up in the course of normal cultural interactions. There once was a point in standard American English when the term "cellular phone" did not exist. Currently this verbal/written symbol, "cellular phone" refers to a properly produced object located in tangible reality.

When someone says my cell phone works, this refers to a tangible reality. Conversely when someone says my cell phone is broke that too refers to a tangible reality. Both of which can be falsified. If someone says their cell phone works we can test to see if it's broken. If someone says their cell phone is broken we can test to see if it works. Science at its foundation is really that simple. It is so simple that children can understand it and perhaps that's why the scientific method is taught as early as Elementary School. It seems that power hungry adults conveniently forget the principles of the scientific method.

We cannot do the same with linguistic phenomena. For example the highly advanced Sanskrit language developed over several thousand years ago. Sanskrit has two concepts that do not exist in standard American English. These are the concepts of Suka and Duka. It is worth pointing out that standard American English has a significant connection to the more advanced Sanskrit.

Suka refers to a state of consciousness that is perpetually satisfied with itself. Generally this is the meaningful lifelong happiness that public figures like the Dalai Lama refer to. The concept of perpetual satisfaction with one's own State of consciousness does not exist in standard American English. Indeed the concept of suka is intimately related to a deep state of mental Stillness.

Duka is the inverse concept of suka. Duka refers to a state of ongoing dissatisfaction with one's own consciousness. Duka leads individuals to grasp onto material pleasures for temporal distraction from Duka. This is essentially the state of consciousness of most of the citizenry in the modern Western world.

Perhaps you agree with my assessment of the application of these Sanskrit concepts, Suka and Duka. Perhaps you disagree with my assessment of the Sanskrit concepts.

The point is not whether you agree or disagree with them, rather they serve to illustrate that the intangible concepts of suka and Duka are not falsifiable. We can provide "evidence" that an individual or group is in a state of suka or Duka. However that evidence cannot rise to the level of scientific falsifiability. The suka and Duka are limited to remaining linguistic phenomena. This is not good, bad, right, or wrong; however, it means that we cannot apply scientific rigor to the concepts of suka and Duka.

We cannot test the validity of suka or duka in a scientific laboratory. This does not mean that the concepts are irrelevant. However it means that we have to understand them with different language that is not scientific.

I cannot hypothesize that my parents are stuck in the state of duka. This is because my proposition is not falsifiable. I can provide voluminous amounts of evidence to convince those around me that my parents are in a state of Duka. This does not mean that there is an objective reality that they are in a state of duka. Duka is a linguistic phenomenon, not a scientific one.

Perhaps if I convinced enough people around my parents that they are indeed in a state of Duka, then those around them could help encourage them to engage in practices of mental Stillness to dispel their duka and cultivate suka.

However my parents would retain a right in a civil society to decline such social pressures. They are in a position to say "thanks but no thanks". As suka and Duka are linguistic phenomena, those around them have no natural right to impose those intangible concepts upon them. This also means that my parents and other members of the citizenry in the modern Western world have no right to impose the epithet on anyone around them.

The epithet is a linguistic phenomenon that cannot be falsified. This allows the epithet to be used maliciously on individuals and groups, especially minorities.

If the epithet is not a scientific phenomenon, then how can we understand it as a linguistic phenomenon?

The epithet is merely an idiom. As a linguistic phenomenon, an idiom is a verbal or written symbol that appears to refer to one thing but in reality refers to something completely different. Idioms are challenging for foreign speakers as they're inherently deceptive. This is not malicious by any means, however it must be accounted for in everyday language.

I am bilingual and speak English and Spanish fluently. Throughout my life I have taught English to native Spanish speakers. I have found that standard American English is one of the most challenging languages to teach to a foreign speaker. This is because standard American English contains so many unwritten rules as well as contradictions to the unwritten rules; it functions more like a secret society than a language.

Speakers of standard American English are simply "in the know" on how to use the language properly. Learning to speak standard American English properly is analogous to being initiated into a secret society.

Try teaching standard American English idioms to native Spanish speakers. This is a rather challenging task.

"The grass is always greener on the other side" is a standard American English idiom. These verbal/written symbols juxtaposed in accordance with standard American English grammar do not refer to green grass.

Rather speakers of standard American English recognize that this idiom really means that someone desires that which they cannot access.

For example when one is at home they want to be on vacation. When one is on vacation they want to come back home.

The epithet is a modern standard American English idiom, as well. It is not a scientific concept as it is not falsifiable. It is a linguistic concept as it is an idiom that does not refer to the apparent superficial meaning of the verbal/written symbols. When we talk of a mental sickness we are not talking about biological pathology. Rather we are talking about a deviation from the personal expectations of whatever individual or group is using the idiom.

When we have large groups using the idiom we call it an institution. When we have small groups using the idiom we may refer to that as an ad hoc group. An ad hoc group is a group that spontaneously organizes around a specific intention.

In the case of the epithet, that spontaneous organization may be to attempt to impose the idiom upon an individual or group against their consent.

This social fervor is laying the seeds for autocracy.

When nobody knows what the epithet really refers to, then anybody can become a self-proclaimed expert.

I am a published author, including an academically published thesis. I struggle to comprehend why an ignorant public thinks they understand the epithet so well that they can attempt to impose it upon me, despite my own highly logical understanding of the concept.I have legitimate recognition from a university. Indeed Northeastern Illinois University has published my thesis.

Nevertheless I have to contend with numerous self-proclaimed experts who cannot distinguish between an idiom and a valid scientific process called the scientific method.

Such a situation creates numerous headaches, to say the least. I struggle to find humility in the modern Western world. Perhaps humility is the antidote to such profound and obstinate ignorance.

In Epistemology, knowing that which one does not know is extremely important.

In other words it is important to recognize when we honestly do not know something. When we try to fool ourselves and pretend that we know, when we honestly do not, we create a giant social mess that tramples all over the rights of individuals and groups. The mental hell-th system is the most obvious manifestation of this folly.

The responsibility of everyday citizens is well within their reach. It simply requires being honest with oneself and acknowledging to oneself and those around them when they honestly do not know something.

This means everyday people need to be able to distinguish between "knowing" (the act of "knowing" is proper application of Epistemology and thus is properly produced knowledge that can be built upon) and the following linguistic concepts:

Thinking

Believing

Doubt

Uncertainty

Personal convenience

Fitting in with one's social group

Etc

While each of the aforementioned concepts have a role in daily human consciousness none of them are a state of knowing/proper knowledge production.

Knowledge cannot be properly produced based solely on one's convictions or beliefs. Such an error in thinking is merely personal convenience for The thinker.

In other words I cannot make my cell phone work just because I believe it should work. Conversely I cannot break my cell phone merely because I doubt that it will work.

Furthermore all of my friends believing that my cell phone should work is not going to fix a broken cell phone. Finally my friends uncertainty that my cell phone will work when I hit the power button is quickly dispelled the moment the cell phone turns on.

Indeed tangible reality requires a higher degree of rigor for producing knowledge properly than intangible reality. This is because we can locate tangible reality and test it using falsifiable hypotheses. We cannot do this within tangible concepts including the epithet.

Thank you for taking the time to read this essay. I hope that the time and effort that I put into producing this essay has not been in vain.

Have a Content Day,

Sean