Right-wing troll Ben Shapiro has a cliché he deploys whenever he’s confronted by someone who disagrees with his particular brand of snarky malevolence: “facts don’t care about your feelings.” Of course, what Ben means is that his feelings don’t care about your facts. If Ben feels you’re wrong, then you’re wrong regardless of the evidence you provide, and if Ben feels he’s right (he usually feels he’s right) then he doesn’t need to provide any evidence at all.
I think a related, but far more productive, distinction is that between falsifiable and non-falsifiable claims.
A falsifiable claim is not a fact, but it’s fact-curious
There are lots of kinds of falsifiable claims, but what they have in common is that there is some piece of information that you can more or less objectively determine in advance would make the claim false:
- If you had only ever seen trees that lose their leaves in the winter, you might claim “all trees lose their leaves in the winter.” This is falsifiable because discovering a tree that does not lose its leaves in the winter would make the claim false. After encountering a pine tree, you might adapt your claim to “all leafy trees lose their leaves in the winter.” After encountering a palm tree, you might adapt it further to “some leafy trees lose their leaves in the winter; others do not.” Even if you never encounter an evergreen tree, however, you can acknowledge that the existence of an evergreen tree would disprove your initial claim. The falsifiability is an intrinsic feature of the claim, separate from its truth value.
- Famously, the claim that “all swans are white” is falsifiable because you know in advance that the existence of a black swan will render the claim false — whether or not you ever find out black swans exist.
- The claim that immigrants to the United States are violent criminals is falsifiable because you can collect data on the number of crimes committed by immigrants and see if that data shows immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, or that communities with high populations of non-native-born residents have lower crime rates than communities with low populations of immigrants. Again, the falsifiability of the claim is not dependent on whether it is false or not, but rather that there is some piece of evidence that you can acknowledge, if it existed, would prove the claim false.
Non-falsifiable claims are the ones that really motivate people
Ben Shapiro’s formulation juxtaposing “facts” and “feelings” sounds reassuring, but there’s a fundamental problem: while falsifiable claims have a sturdy scientific logic to them, falsifiable claims don’t, in fact, motivate anyone’s actions. That’s because at the bottom of most falsifiable claims is a non-falsifiable claim that no evidence can cause a person to reject or modify. Global warming denialism follows this pattern:
- the Earth isn’t warming (falsifiable);
- the Earth is warming, but it’s not the result of human activity (falsifiable);
- the Earth is warming due to human activity, but it’s actually good (falsifiable);
- the Earth is warming due to human activity, it’s bad, but there’s nothing we can do to stop it (falsifiable);
- even if we could stop it, I don’t want to (non-falsifiable).
In this case it’s obvious that the more time is spent arguing over the details of #1 through #4, the less time is spent dealing with the core, non-falsifiable claim in #5.
Engaging non-falsifiable claims can lead to meaningful solutions
To come around full circle to our friend Ben Shapiro, a particular obsession of his is with the existence of “biological genders.” Now, people who study these things for a living will tell you that “biological gender” is an oxymoron, since gender, like race, is a social construct. Even worse, biological sex isn’t even binary!
But this is making a fundamental mistake, confusing falsifiable claims (“there are two biological sexes”) with the non-falsifiable claims that actually motivate Shapiro: “I feel threatened by the increasing visibility of non-cisgender-people.” This is illustrated in possibly one of the greatest Shapiro tweets of all time:
What’s going on here? Does Ben Shapiro understand how restrooms work? The idea of treating this as a falsifiable claim is making a basic category error. The grievance has nothing to do with bathroom logistics, it has to do with Shapiro’s fundamental insecurity in a world he doesn’t recognize or understand (I don’t mean this as a defense, Ben Shapiro isn’t even two years older than me and I’m not a transphobe so I don’t know what his excuse is).
Recognizing people’s claims as non-falsifiable is treated by ideologues like Shapiro as a way of dismissing them (“feelings”). Unfortunately, we often don’t have that luxury in a country we have to share with one another. Once you recognize that you don’t have to change people’s minds to reach compromise, however, you can sometimes identify solutions acceptable to everyone.
For example, the frenzy in certain conservative circles over restroom access for trans people can’t be resolved by convincing conservatives of the dignity of trans people. But (as any late bloomer can tell you) you’d find support among liberals and conservatives alike for replacing open changing rooms with private changing and showering cabins at American middle schools and high schools.
Likewise, equalizing federal treatment of highway and public transit funding doesn’t require convincing anyone to believe in anthropogenic global warming, but would do an enormous amount to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions.
This approach doesn’t require anyone to admit they were wrong, which of course is a drawback to conservatives who want to destroy human civilization in order to own the libs and to leftists who want conservatives to acknowledge the dignity of their fellow man. But it has the advantage of sidestepping the non-falsifiable claims each side holds dear.
People rightly put values above facts
You can disparage non-falsifiable claims as “feelings,” but it’s much more accurate to describe them as values. Values are the things that motivate us in the complete absence of evidence. Fox host John Stossel thought he had a pretty good stunt dressing up in a fake beard and begging for money on the street to prove that #actually panhandlers have it pretty good. And indeed, what does cause a person to give money to a panhandler without insisting on seeing audited tax returns for the previous 5 years?
Well, values do. And when values are really, fundamentally in conflict, we should have long, drawn-out, bitter battles over our values. If you think immigration causes crime, we can talk about the evidence. If you think immigration lowers wages, we can talk about the evidence. But if you think the United States is and ought to remain a white ethnostate, immigration is an issue we’ll never agree or compromise on.
Conclusion
I find this framework helpful, so I thought I’d pass it along. A lot of public disagreements take place at the superficial level of falsifiable claims: how many Pinocchios does this or that Trump tweet get? But people, rightly, mostly don’t care about the truth of their falsifiable claims. They care about the truth of their non-falsifiable claims — their values.
Shall we preserve the habitability of the Earth for future generations? Shall we spare immigrants the cruelty of family separation? Shall we honor Confederate as well as Union generals? Shall we privilege religious objections to non-discrimination laws above racist objections to non-discrimination laws?
These are not questions that have answers you can find if you just dig deep enough into the scientific literature. They’re questions about how a person should be. There are opportunities to finesse some of these controversies, while others must be engaged to the best of our ability, not in the interest of convincing those who don’t share our values, but for the sake of activating the consciences of those who do.
What has Ben Shapiro said that is false? Or do you not like him only because he has different views than you?
Ben,
Thanks for missing the point of the post.
—Indy
@indy I asked my question because you could have made your argument without showing your clear disdain for him and insinuating that he is dishonest.
If you were to call out, for example President Trump for many of his lies, and use that as a foil for your argument, I’d have no problem.
But it seems wrong to question someone’s integrity, just because you don’t agree or like that person.
That’s why I asked if you knew of anything He has said that is a clear lie or falsifying facts.
Ben,
Ok, since you aren’t interested in reading the actual post, let me lay out the structure for you very simply:
1) Ben Shapiro’s public persona is a performance that uses as its emotional appeal the assertion that it is based on falsifiable claims. “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”
2) Importantly, that assertion is false; it’s just a promotional gimmick to sell tickets and t-shirts. While the specific claims Ben Shapiro makes may be falsifiable, virtually all of them have them have, in fact, been falsified (biological sex is not binary, gender is not binary, and biological sex doesn’t map perfectly onto gender, for example). So his arguments do not — cannot — hinge on the difference between “facts” and “feelings,” instead they hinge on the difference between falsifiable and non-falsifiable claims.
3) And indeed, Ben Shapiro’s actual appeal is not based on his falsifiable claims, it’s based on his non-falsifiable claims: “It makes me uncomfortable to think about my daughter in a public restroom with a differently-sexed person.” How could this possibly be disproven? I don’t doubt for a minute thinking about this makes Ben Shapiro uncomfortable, and don’t know what evidence would “prove” to Ben Shapiro or anyone else that it doesn’t make him uncomfortable. Trying to do so is a fool’s errand.
The point of the post is that once you come to terms with the fact that people are primarily motivated by their non-falsifiable claims, i.e., their values, you can come up with creative solutions that serve people who live in the real world (the world governed by “facts”) and satisfies the needs of people with non-falsifiable “feelings” about that world.
This won’t always be the case! Sometimes people’s values really do need to be repressed or ignored when making policy. If you think black students are too stupid or troublesome to study with white students, that’s not a value or “feeling” that we should accommodate by segregating our schools. But if you think public school resources are inadequate to serve your community’s schools, that’s a problem that can be solved without doing anything to address your underlying racism, by increasing the amount of resources available.
In other words, where it is possible, we can get along better when we make deliberate efforts to accommodate the actual underlying anxieties and prejudices of people like Ben Shapiro, and often in doing so will make things better for the people who make him anxious and scared as well, without ever trying to convince people like Ben Shapiro that their truths are “wrong,” a task that is essentially impossible.
—Indy
A very thought-provoking post — thanks for writing!
Fantastic post. Thank you for sharing.
It’s amusing that an article on falsifiable / non-falsifiable evidence contains falsifiable claims. Very tongue in cheek, or maybe just inertive research? In any case, it is rather lazy to offer outlier examples to make generalizations.
I don’t think you have completely grasped what falsifiable claims are or what they are for.
When you start off an argument by branding someone as a “right-wing troll,” you immediately identify yourself as someone who has no credibility..
Why? are you trying to appeal to an ad hominem? This author has no right to speak on the subject because he used a label on a person? can you explain how exactly that takes away credibility. I’m not saying that you have to agree, however if you are attempting to argue against his position I think you need more than: this person is wrong because of they think Ben Shapiro is a “right-wing troll.”
The word “troll” suggests the idea of an unknown person – probably using a fake identity or screen-name – who goes onto a website and posts anonymous messages that are intended to annoy, offend, or insult the customary clients of that website, a website that reflects the beliefs and values of those clients. Thus a troll would be someone who posts pro-Michigan comments and/or anti-Ohio State comments on a website intended for Ohio State football fans.
I have no idea whether Ben Shapiro makes a habit of posting comments on left-wing websites, but I kind of doubt it. Shapiro is a published author, and a conservative television commentator, blogger, and public speaker. To describe him as a “troll” is a misleading cheap shot which says far more about the author than it does Shapiro. You accuse “Rio” of making an “ad-hominem” argument when that is the very thing he criticizes the author for.
Note: My screen name is my real name.
> You can disparage non-falsifiable claims as “feelings,” but it’s much more accurate to describe them as values. Values are the things that motivate us in the complete absence of evidence.
I’m not sure how that applies to eg an individual’s claim of being male. It’s not necessarily about valuing being male; the person doesn’t have to think that being male is better than being female. Or perhaps the intended application here is that it is what motivates the person to eg wear a suit and tie and perhaps use hormones to grow a beard? Or legally rename oneself to “John”?
In general, I don’t mind the position of “gender claims are not scientifically provable, but they are important to the individuals who hold them, and we should respect that.” However, that sounds very much like the legal and social position that we would attach to a religious belief. If that is the case, then it should be socially acceptable to respectfully disagree with someone’s claims about their own gender, just as we might disagree with their religious beliefs, and there should then be sharp restrictions on legal interference in the matter.
For example, the Australian state of Victoria has recently passed legislation that forbids anyone from assisting someone, even at that person’s request, in working to change their gender identity. If we’re going to respect gender claims as a matter of individual and personal values, then the government certainly has no business passing such a law. And policies like Sufficient Velocity requiring members to use people’s preferred gender (https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/the-rules-and-procedures-of-sufficient-velocity.40100/#post-8912695) are then over-stepping; so long as there is no hateful or abusive language, it ought to be acceptable to respectfully disagree with someone’s choice of pronoun, and continue to follow one’s own values on the subject.
It’s fine to ask for a basic level of respect for your beliefs just because we’re all human and should give each other that, but I think we’re seeing demands for far more than just that basic level of courtesy, and those stronger demands, in my view, requiring compliance and not just courtesy, need to be backed by actual evidence.