High Brow Smut

My mother is a genius. This is an objective statement of fact, not colored by love or familial respect. Earlier this year, she finished her second PhD, in Religious Philosophy (her first was in Computer Science - those of you enjoying mp4s can thank my mother - she built much of the technology involved). She also has a deep seated suspicion that her only child might be retarded since I have yet to earn my first doctorate and didn't go to Harvard. But whatever, Daddy thinks I'm smart.

Because she gave birth to me, I have been editing her dissertation to ready it for publication, gratis. And we have been arguing about the appropriateness of applying different philosophies of the scientific method to her thesis. Her thesis aside, our most recent "discussions" (where most commonly repeated, on both sides, is the accusation of sloppy thinking, and I usually lose) has led me to apply these philosophies to dating and sex and love.

There is a "well known" conflict between the opposing views of two twentieth century philosophers of science - Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. In this post, I will argue that their views are not conflicting when applied to the topic of sex and dating and love and that the specific stage of dating determines the prevailing paradigm followed. Note that I am not being prescriptive, merely descriptive, based on the data points I have gathered from my experiences and those of my friends.

Initial Stage - Dating:

Popper's theory of Falsificationism states that scientists should give up a theory as soon as they encounter any falsifying evidence. He maintains that theories should be held very tentatively and that basic assumptions should be continually questioned and criticized. Commitment, for Popper, is a crime.

Consider the prelude to a first date when online dating. Even after the picture and the written profile pass muster, and the initially formed, tentatively held assumptions appear promising, there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. The guy who looks cute in his profile pictures can suddenly email pictures of himself in his underwear which is just plain creepy. Or the guy whose written profile suggests the completion of a college education might send emails rich with tragic mistakes: "it's vs. its", "further vs. farther", "less vs. fewer".

Even when the prelude to the first date is successfully completed with no horrifying falsifying evidence, there's the first date itself: the guy who eats with both elbows on the table; the guy who licks his butter knife; the guy who says, after asking for the check: "I feel strongly that we split the bill because I don't want you to feel obligated to have sex with me."

Later Stage - the Relationship:

If all the preliminary stages of dating are successfully completed and an actual relationship ensues, then Thomas Kuhn steps in.

Kuhn describes science as consisting of periods of "normal science" (the relatively routine, day-to-day work of scientists) during which theories are held tightly, with great tenacity and commitment, even in the face of anomalies, and only questioned in rare times of crisis.

Sort of like: "Ok, so he can't run for President because of the felony conviction, but I don't need to be the First Lady."
Or: "He's 20 years older than I am and balding and impotent, but hey, doesn't every relationship have its problems?"
Or: "He doesn't really know what the hell he's doing in bed, but he makes a mean omelet."
Or: "He's really annoying when he talks and walks and eats and breathes but at least he's not a sociopathic alcoholic."

The Intermediate Position:

Now, there is a philosopher who sought a methodology that would harmonize the stances of Popper and Kuhn. Imre Lakatos proposes an intermediate position: commitment to a "hard core" of central ideas which are protected from conflicting evidence by making adjustments to the "protective belt" of auxiliary hypotheses.

Rather like: "He's thoughtful and sweet, and hey, what guy DOESN'T lick the butter knife?"
Or: "He's handy around the house and listens to more than 50% of what I say to him, and as for sex, that's why they invented vibrators!"

But Lakatos has an interesting twist: he doesn't ask whether a hypothesis is true or false. For him, the important question is whether the entire research program as a whole is progressive or degenerative. A progressive research program grows, and that growth is accompanied by the discovery of new information. A degenerative research program either stalls, or grows in a way that does NOT lead to new information.

I think this is a good point to close this post. Here's to the promise of a progressive Lakatosian research program for dating, sex, and love!