Two-headed cerberus, part 2: I.P.U.

Frequently when Christians argue for their beliefs online (typically fundagelicals, simply because those are the only ones who bother to argue for their beliefs) you find the Skeptics shooting back with the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The Christians, naturally, will complain that the I.P.U. is clearly meant to mock Christianity by dragging it down to the level of silly fairytales. Wikipedia is reasonably honest about this, but at many places- particularly the SDMB- the Skeptics will insist that no, the I.P.U. is merely meant to humorously illustrate the concept of Popperian falsifiability. If an idea is immune to all possibility of disproof, then it's not worth taking seriously, because there's no way to know whether it's true or not. For example, I once saw Michael Behe presented with the claim that such-and-such gene clearly shows evolution being driven by random mutations, thus disproving Intelligent Design. Behe replied that the mutations were actually directed by God, but that God had disguised them to make them appear completely random. To this, a good Skeptic will shoot back, "I'll believe in Intelligent Design, but only if you can prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist." Sure, all evidence shows that the I.P.U. doesn't exist- but that's just because the I.P.U. works so hard to remove all traces of her existence.

So, do Skeptics really value Popperian falsifiability? Not really. It's just a convenient stick with which to beat the fundagelicals, but they don't really believe in it. Just raise the question of conspiracy theories, and sure enough, some Skeptic will say, "Don't be silly, every conpsiracy is revealed sooner or later." This very obviously violates Popperian falsifiability. How can you possibly disprove it? The only possible counterexamples are things no one will ever hear about. The very act of learning about a counterexample destroys its validity as evidence! I've tried to point out that many conspiracies have, in fact, managed to stay hidden for a very long time: MKULTRA stayed undiscovered for 25 years, was only discovered more or less by freak accident, and 90% of the activities involved in the program will never be uncovered, because the files were shredded. Needless to say, the Skeptics point to that as proof that every conspiracy will always be revealed in all its details sooner or later.

Even worse, the Skeptical rebuttal doesn't even make sense. Obviously if I'm presenting a conspiracy theory, I'm claiming that that theory has been uncovered. It's like saying "I had a hamburger for lunch today," and being told, "Don't be ridiculous- all hamburgers get eaten sooner or later." But don't wait around hoping that the Skeptics will mock one of their own kind with the I.P.U. They don't really care about Popperian falsifiability, any more than the creationists do. They're like the little mechanical figures on a clock, programmed to march out and strike the bell with a hammer every hour. Except in this case, they're programmed to smack creationists with the I.P.U. every so often. Smacking conspiracy deniers with the I.P.U. simply isn't part of their programming, so you'll never see them do it.