Are Any of the 2012 End-of-World Predictions Reasonable?
Based on prophesies of the Mayans, the writings of Nostradamus (a 16th-century French mystic), or on various sacred texts, some people believe that cataclysmic disasters will occur in 2012. Is any of this reasonable?
We can expect something undesirable to happen in 2012 because something undesirable has happened in every year of recorded history. With practical certainty, moreover, we can predict 2012 will be a year in which earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, fires, and wars will occur, just like they have in every other year. But if that is all the so-called 2012 "end-time" predictions come to, they don't say anything about 2012 in particular, and they are not even interesting.
To be a little more charitable, even science claims that the world will end in cataclysm -- though not in 2012. Cosmologists tell us that the Universe has a finite lifetime, and it will end in a way nastier than anything Hollywood has imagined. End-time claims are therefore not entirely devoid of reason. They often exhibit, however, much room for "improvement".
Many end-time claims, including all of the Mayan and Nostradaman prophesies, lie outside the realm of scientific inquiry (and some people would argue, of common sense) in particular. In order to be a subject of scientific inquiry, a claim must be (1) clear to informed, well-intentioned people (IWIP), (2) testable -- that is, it must be possible to describe under what well-controlled conditions most IWIP would agree it would be reasonable to believe the claim should be accepted, and (3) falsifiable -- that is, it must be possible to imagine a consistent set of conditions/tests under which most IWIP would say the claim should be rejected (regarded as false). (Notice, by the way, that if it's not possible to agree on exactly what a claim means, it's nearly pointless to ask whether it's testable or falsifiable.)
Let's look at some particular and representative examples of 2012 end-time claims in light of these criteria.
A scientific prediction must be clear. Consider the claim, "In 2012, bad leaders will arise", which is one of the clearer of the Mayan end-time prophesies. At a minimum, this claim does not pass the test of clarity. Exactly what is meant by "bad" and "leader"? There is no way to make out the intended meaning by analyzing the words of the claim. In contrast, a claim like "In March 2012, the Moon will collide with the Earth" is clear enough (even if it is extremely unlikely to be true).
A scientific prediction must be testable. Consider the claim, "The world will be ruled by forces of darkness that cannot be seen, heard, felt, or understood by Man", which some people say Nostradamus "predicted" will happen in 2012. For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the claim is clear (it isn't) and that Nostradamus actually assigned a date to the claim (he never did, not even to the nearest millennium). How could we test this claim? If we take the terms of claim at face, we can't use our senses or our understanding to determine whether it is reasonable to accept the claim, and there is no other way to determine the likelihood that the claim is true. Whatever such a claim is, therefore, it is untestable. In contrast, "On January 20, 2012, an earthquake measuring 9.2 on the Richter scale will destroy Los Alamos", is completely testable (though very likely to be false).
A scientific prediction must be falsifiable. Consider the claim, "On June 23, 2012, the Walmart in Española NM will be struck by asteroid, or it won't." This is a perfectly clear and testable claim. But there is something very odd about it: it's true no matter what happens on June 23, 2012. This means that we can't even imagine conditions under which the claim should be rejected, i.e., the claim is not falsifiable. In contrast, the claim, "On December 21, 2012, five continuous miles of the asphalt on NM Highway 30 will burn to ash", is falsifiable: if none of NM Highway 30 burns on that day, the claim is false.
All this said, it's worth noting that the criteria of clarity, testability, and falsifiability, even if they were clear, are not themselves testable or falsifiable. This does not mean that they are matters of arbitrary and capricious opinion. We might insist on these criteria because we think that doing so has desirable practical consequences. We might hold these criteria, for example, because holding them promotes our survival or minimizes the number of potentially erroneous assumptions we must make.
For further information, see K. R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1968.
We can expect something undesirable to happen in 2012 because something undesirable has happened in every year of recorded history. With practical certainty, moreover, we can predict 2012 will be a year in which earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, fires, and wars will occur, just like they have in every other year. But if that is all the so-called 2012 "end-time" predictions come to, they don't say anything about 2012 in particular, and they are not even interesting.
To be a little more charitable, even science claims that the world will end in cataclysm -- though not in 2012. Cosmologists tell us that the Universe has a finite lifetime, and it will end in a way nastier than anything Hollywood has imagined. End-time claims are therefore not entirely devoid of reason. They often exhibit, however, much room for "improvement".
Many end-time claims, including all of the Mayan and Nostradaman prophesies, lie outside the realm of scientific inquiry (and some people would argue, of common sense) in particular. In order to be a subject of scientific inquiry, a claim must be (1) clear to informed, well-intentioned people (IWIP), (2) testable -- that is, it must be possible to describe under what well-controlled conditions most IWIP would agree it would be reasonable to believe the claim should be accepted, and (3) falsifiable -- that is, it must be possible to imagine a consistent set of conditions/tests under which most IWIP would say the claim should be rejected (regarded as false). (Notice, by the way, that if it's not possible to agree on exactly what a claim means, it's nearly pointless to ask whether it's testable or falsifiable.)
Let's look at some particular and representative examples of 2012 end-time claims in light of these criteria.
A scientific prediction must be clear. Consider the claim, "In 2012, bad leaders will arise", which is one of the clearer of the Mayan end-time prophesies. At a minimum, this claim does not pass the test of clarity. Exactly what is meant by "bad" and "leader"? There is no way to make out the intended meaning by analyzing the words of the claim. In contrast, a claim like "In March 2012, the Moon will collide with the Earth" is clear enough (even if it is extremely unlikely to be true).
A scientific prediction must be testable. Consider the claim, "The world will be ruled by forces of darkness that cannot be seen, heard, felt, or understood by Man", which some people say Nostradamus "predicted" will happen in 2012. For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the claim is clear (it isn't) and that Nostradamus actually assigned a date to the claim (he never did, not even to the nearest millennium). How could we test this claim? If we take the terms of claim at face, we can't use our senses or our understanding to determine whether it is reasonable to accept the claim, and there is no other way to determine the likelihood that the claim is true. Whatever such a claim is, therefore, it is untestable. In contrast, "On January 20, 2012, an earthquake measuring 9.2 on the Richter scale will destroy Los Alamos", is completely testable (though very likely to be false).
A scientific prediction must be falsifiable. Consider the claim, "On June 23, 2012, the Walmart in Española NM will be struck by asteroid, or it won't." This is a perfectly clear and testable claim. But there is something very odd about it: it's true no matter what happens on June 23, 2012. This means that we can't even imagine conditions under which the claim should be rejected, i.e., the claim is not falsifiable. In contrast, the claim, "On December 21, 2012, five continuous miles of the asphalt on NM Highway 30 will burn to ash", is falsifiable: if none of NM Highway 30 burns on that day, the claim is false.
All this said, it's worth noting that the criteria of clarity, testability, and falsifiability, even if they were clear, are not themselves testable or falsifiable. This does not mean that they are matters of arbitrary and capricious opinion. We might insist on these criteria because we think that doing so has desirable practical consequences. We might hold these criteria, for example, because holding them promotes our survival or minimizes the number of potentially erroneous assumptions we must make.
For further information, see K. R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1968.
Comment
Green Week News
About
Badge
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
© 2010 Created by The Green Line
You need to be a member of The Green Line to add comments!
Join this Ning Network