Negative Empiricism

The good news is that there is a way around this naïve empiricism. I am saying that a series of corroborative facts is not necessarily evidence. Seeing white swans does not confirm the nonexistence of black swans. There is an exception, however: I know what statement is wrong, but not necessarily what statement is correct. If I see a black swan I can certify that not all swans are white! If I see someone kill, then I can be practically certain that he is a criminal. If I don’t see him kill, I cannot be certain that he is innocent. The same applies to cancer detection: the finding of a single malignant tumor proves that you have cancer, but the absence of such a finding cannot allow you to say with certainty that you are cancer-free.

We can get closer to the truth by negative instances, not by verification! It is misleading to build a general rule from observed facts. Contrary to conventional wisdom, our body of knowledge does not increase from a series of confirmatory observations, like the turkey’s. But there are some things I can remain skeptical about, and others I can safely consider certain. This makes the consequences of observations one-sided. It is not much more difficult than that.

This asymmetry is immensely practical. It tells us that we do not have to be complete skeptics, just semiskeptics. The subtlety of real life over the books is that, in your decision making, you need be interested only in one side of the story: if you seek certainty about whether the patient has cancer, not certainty about whether he is healthy, then you might be satisfied with negative inference, since it will supply you the certainty you seek. So we can learn a lot from data—but not as much as we expect. Sometimes a lot of data can be meaningless; at other times one single piece of information can be very meaningful. It is true that a thousand days cannot prove you right, but one day can prove you to be wrong.

The person who is credited with the promotion of this idea of one-sided semiskepticism is Sir Doktor Professor Karl Raimund Popper, who may be the only philosopher of science who is actually read and discussed by actors in the real world (though not as enthusiastically by professional philosophers). As I am writing these lines, a black-and-white picture of him is hanging on the wall of my study. It was a gift I got in Munich from the essayist Jochen Wegner, who, like me, considers Popper to be about all “we’ve got” among modern thinkers—well, almost. He writes to us, not to other philosophers. “We” are the empirical decision makers who hold that uncertainty is our discipline, and that understanding how to act under conditions of incomplete information is the highest and most urgent human pursuit.

Popper generated a large-scale theory around this asymmetry, based on a technique called “falsification” (to falsify is to prove wrong) meant to distinguish between science and nonscience, and people immediately started splitting hairs about its technicalities, even though it is not the most interesting, or the most original, of Popper’s ideas. This idea about the asymmetry of knowledge is so liked by practitioners, because it is obvious to them; it is the way they run their business. The philosopher maudit Charles Sanders Peirce, who, like an artist, got only posthumous respect, also came up with a version of this Black Swan solution when Popper was wearing diapers—some people even called it the Peirce-Popper approach. Popper’s far more powerful and original idea is the “open” society, one that relies on skepticism as a modus operandi, refusing and resisting definitive truths. He accused Plato of closing our minds. But Popper’s biggest idea was his insight concerning the fundamental, severe, and incurable unpredictability of the world, a subject closely related to the limits of prediction.*

Of course, it is not so easy to “falsify,” i.e., to state that something is wrong with full certainty. Imperfections in your testing method may yield a mistaken “no.” The doctor discovering cancer cells might have faulty equipment causing optical illusions; or he could be a bell-curve-using economist disguised as a doctor. An eyewitness to a crime might be drunk. But it remains the case that you know what is wrong with a lot more confidence than you know what is right. All pieces of information are not equal in importance.

Popper introduced the mechanism of conjectures and refutations, which works as follows: you formulate a (bold) conjecture and you start looking for the observation that would prove you wrong. This is the alternative to our search for confirmatory instances. If you think the task is easy, you will be disappointed—few humans have a natural ability to do this. I confess that I am not one of them; it does not come naturally to me.*