When Beliefs are Non-Falsifiable and Infallible

[Ray Keller]

When Beliefs are Non-Falsifiable and Infallible
Stately McDaniel Manor | 1-5-2014 | Mike McDaniel


credit: calguns.net

Dealing as I do in the fetid fever swamp of politics, I often confront
ideologues, people who are absolutely convinced of the supremacy and
rightness of their position, no matter what. My favorite Bookworm recently
wrote an informative article on this very subject, via the gun control
debate. If you've not read her work, it's surely worth your time,
particularly so because while she still lives in California-Marin
particularly-she is a recovering Progressive (she's recovering nicely, thank
you).

My former Confederate Yankee co-blogger, Bob Owens, incorporated this
observation into the CY masthead:

Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.

I'm sure Bob had fun with that aphorism, which was at least partially
tongue-in-cheek, and the occasional heated comment from those in persistent
vegetative states proved the point.

Bookworm's article chronicles her conversation with a Progressive who
believes government should have the constitutional power to determine who
shall be allowed to possess arms. She, on the other hand, cited
fact-including a study he raised-to prove his position untenable. Bookworm's
closing is along the lines of the CY aphorism:

And that's why you can't argue with an ideologue. Data is irrelevant.
Blind faith is everything.

Bookworm has hit on one of the primary truths of progressive belief and
politics: progressive orthodoxy requires no proof, for like religious dogma,
it is rooted in faith. One either believes or not; proof is not necessary
and opposing proof may therefore be disregarded. Such beliefs are, in the
language of science, non-falsifiable.

One of the questions-and one related question-I always ask my students gets
to the heart of this:

If you find irrefutable evidence that contradicts a cherished belief,
something you've always held to be true, are you bound to change your belief?
If you do not, what are the consequences?

For the responsible adult, the consequences are obvious. Holding and acting
upon false beliefs is damaging for the individual and society. It can lead
to financial ruin, physical harm, damaged or destroyed relationships and much
more. For the ideologue, the slightest doubt, rather than real world
consequences, is destructive.

Non-falsifiable policies are also infallible. They cannot possibly be wrong,
and when a progressive policy inevitably appears to be wrong, even
destructive-Obamacare being an excellent contemporary example-progressives
will first argue that they are not wrong: the "who you gonna believe, me or
your own lyin' eyes (and the facts)? argument. When the policy is so
obviously a failure that it can no longer be denied, the true believer falls
back on blaming Republicans for sabotaging it, or merely for existing, as
they have with Obamacare despite the fact that Republicans had nothing to do
with writing or implementing the law and not a single Congressional
Republican voted for it. They claim that the policy is being sabotaged
because insufficient money has been spent: "well sure, we've only spent 2
trillion, but we have to spend 8 trillion, then it will really be great!"
They often claim that the policy hasn't had a chance to work its magic: "the
assault weapon ban was only in effect for ten years! No wonder it didn't
reduce crime!" Or they claim that the policy was implemented with
insufficient fervor: "if the NRA would only let us ban all of the guns we
want to ban gun control would work!"

I'm sure that you, gentle readers, have had this experience: you engage a
progressive in what you believe to be reasoned debate. You present rational
arguments, arguments well supported by fact and research. You point out
where their arguments are not factual and supportable. As you do, the
temperature in the room rises. They become angry, and resort to
name-calling, even yelling absurdities. You're accused of hating this or
that, or wanting to harm this or that. Perhaps your conversation ended like
Bookworm's conversation:

His bottom line had the virtue of being honest. 'I don't really care about
the study. Guns are bad and should be done away with.

Progressives often accuse conservatives of being anti-science. Considering
their faith-based belief system, this is richly ironic. Science works only
if a given theory is falsifiable. No matter how well accepted a given theory
is in the scientific world, others, using competent, repeatable methods, must
be able to confirm it or to prove it wrong.

Take global warming as an example. The belief that global warming is taking
place, and that mankind is responsible for it, is non-falsifiable. For the
true believer, there is no condition of climate or weather that does not
prove global warming, even the fact that there has been none for at least 17
years. The fact that the global climate has been much warmer than the
current climate, centuries before man contributed any more carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere than that produced by breathing, is to them confirmation of
global warming. Unseasonable cold? Global warming. Hurricanes? Global
Warming. No hurricanes? Global warming. Receding sea levels? Global
warming. Rising sea levels? Global warming. Beached whales? Global
Warming. No beached whales? Global warming.

A recent case in point is the expedition mounted to the Antarctic intending
to document the melting polar ice cap, which would, in turn, seem to support
the global warming hypothesis. Warmist climate models predicted that the ice
caps are melting, raising sea levels, all due to global warming, of course,
so the expedition had only to jaunt down to the South Pole during its
summer-when better to find melted ice to support one's computer
models?-document all of the melted ice, and rack up hard science in support
of global warming.

As I documented, however (take the link), the Russian ship hired for the
cruise became stuck fast in an incredible amount of ice that the computer
models claim does not exit. A Chinese icebreaker came to the rescue and
managed to helicopter the expedition to an Australian icebreaker, but the
Chinese ship also became stuck in the ice, and the Russians, Chinese and
Australians ended up having to call America for help.

One might think the scientists that mounted the expedition might consider
reevaluating their thinking. One would think wrong. Not only were their
computer models wrong-100% wrong-but the lack of evidence of global warming
endangered their lives and made them an international laughingstock. All of
that ice will be swept under the global warming carpet as an anomaly. It
does not in any way falsify global warming, for global warming is a matter of
faith.

The same is true for gun control. It does not matter that every gun control
measure that has been tried has spectacularly failed. Magazine capacity
limits, "assault weapon" bans, and other favorites of the Left had ten years
to work, and accomplished nothing for public safety. The most competent
studies ever done have proved that more guns in the hands of the law-abiding
do indeed equal less crime, and that states with more concealed handguns have
less violent crime.

Gun free zones have likewise been bloody failures. With perhaps a single
exception, every mass attack in recent history occurred in a gun-free zone
where the innocent were disarmed. There can be no doubt that the only thing
capable of stopping an armed madman before he kills is a honest citizen with
a gun, yet all of this and more is ignored by those whose fear of firearms,
and their hatred of those who own them, borders on the pathological.

Truth doesn't matter. Facts don't matter. Science doesn't matter, because
their beliefs are non-falsifiable and infallible; nothing can prove them
wrong, nothing.

This is different than religious faith, however. As Thomas Jefferson said:

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god.
It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

In the American Republic, with its tolerance of all faiths, this is true.
There is, on Earth, no direct consequence of holding a given religious faith.
But where politics are involved, holding non-falsifiable beliefs, believing
them to be infallible, and forcing them on others, can indeed pick our
pockets, break our legs or cost our lives.

Progressivism is all about forcing others to live as a self-imagined elite
believe to be right.

For that reason, it is always worthwhile to engage in gentle, well-reasoned,
and sincere debate and persuasion. Some progressives, mugged by reality, are
capable of changing their views to at least some degree. Each changed mind
helps to reduce the number of those that would force non-falsifiable
orthodoxy on us all.

Just remember, gentle readers, what you're up against and don't be surprised
when an ideologue insists on holding onto a non-falsifiable, infallible
belief.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'd call what we face today part of the 'Social Democratic' movement. It's
more of a cult, evolved out of the slime of Marxism, keeping key tenets but
refining others.


Reality is not welcome among the global warming government supremacists.