On lost falsifiability of experts
By Amir Mollaee Mozaffari
Staff writer
Honestly, there are too many political analyses to go around. However, quantity is not my concern, rather it’s the quality of some of the said analyses that worry me. The former feeds the latter, though; Since there’s a fierce competition to make yourself known and have your voice heard, some political analysts fall in the trap of covering all bases.
What is that trap? It’s a futile attempt at making sure that your hypotheses and theories stand tall against any and all objections. Why it’s futile? Because we’re talking about human sciences, where there are innumerable, possibly unforeseeable variables at play for almost all outcomes. We cannot and would not put political figures and political situations in the lab to control unwanted variables from messing with the result.
One may rightfully ask what is wrong with covering all bases? After all, most of us were raised thinking that it’s the highest standard that any scientific theory can achieve: to never be proven wrong, to have something to say to anything. Why would this be a problem? It’s only a problem when it’s an ad-hoc explanation to objections, when you find that a base has slipped your mind that must be covered lest you lose credibility. If adopted, this strategy is a disservice to you and your audience as it kills queries just to kill them, not to answer them.
See page 4