The Paradox of the Persistent Paradigm
When rejection makes a theory stronger
Theories are meant to explain the world to us. But what happens when a theory is challenged and fails to explain new data? Do scientists abandon that theory, or do they cling to it more tightly?
The quick and easy answer is that when a theory is disproven, it is replaced by a new theory that can explain the new data well. This is how science is supposed to work.
But in the real world, sometimes when a theory is disproven, scientists stick to it even more. Why? Because they have no alternative. The question that follows is this: is such scientific behavior rational?
My answer is yes. In fact, I believe that when a disproven theory has no alternative, clinging to that theory even more strongly is the rational behavior. Let me explain why.
The Theory of Cornered Rational Choice
I develop the Theory of Cornered Rational Choice based on two simple ideas: the compelled option and the cornered option.
A compelled option is the choice that a rational person selects not because they favor it, but because dwindling capability (income, resources, or the explanatory power of a theory) limits their choices. If their capability were not declining, they would not choose that option.
A cornered option is a compelled option that has no accessible alternative. In this case, rising costs or pressures lead to a greater tendency toward the option, not less. Increasing costs or pressures reduce the person’s capability and block access to alternatives. When a rational actor is cornered, pressure backfires.
This is rational behavior under extreme constraint, not irrationality. I call this the Theory of Cornered Rational Choice, developed by combining Gary Becker’s economic approach with Giffen good theory.
Beyond Popper: The Reality of Scientific Inertia
Karl Popper, whose gift to the world of philosophy of science was the concept of falsifiability, envisioned science as a noble arena where theories are executed the moment they fail an experiment. However, if we look at the actual behavior of the scientific community, they do not act like executioners. They act like survivors.
When a theory encounters an anomaly, something it cannot explain, the normal rational response should be to discard it. But if you discard your only map while lost in the woods, your intellectual power will not increase. You are just lost.
Therefore, a theory’s strength is not just measured by its accuracy, but by its monopoly on explanation. If a theory is the only game in town, every new piece of evidence that refutes it actually highlights the crisis of having no alternative. This forces scientists to patch the old theory rather than abandon it.
The Geocentric Trap: A Historical Masterclass
The most striking example of this is the transition from the Geocentric (Earth-centered) model to the Heliocentric (Sun-centered) model.
Before Galileo and Copernicus, the Ptolemaic system reigned supreme. It posited that the Earth was the unmoving center of the universe. As astronomers observed the heavens, they began to see things that did not fit. They saw retrograde motion, where planets seemed to move backward in the sky.
By Popper’s logic, these observations should have led to the immediate rejection of the Earth-centered theory. But they did not. Instead, the theory grew stronger in its complexity. Scientists invented epicycles, circles within circles, to explain away the errors.
Why? Because at the time, there was no alternative. The idea of a moving Earth was not just a scientific shift; it was a physical and theological impossibility. The scientists were cornered.
Every new observation that contradicted the Earth-centered model did not lead to its death. It led to more frantic, complex defenses of it. The theory was strong because it was the only thing standing between the observer and total chaos.
The Vacuum of Explanation
The core of my insight lies in the vacuum of explanation. Humans have a fundamental psychological and intellectual horror of a vacuum. We would rather have a broken explanation than no explanation at all.
Get Mojtaba Mohkam’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
When a theory is refuted by new data, but no new theory is born to take its place, the current theory gains a strange kind of explanatory power.
Think of it like an old, crumbling bridge. People know the bridge is dangerous. They see the cracks (the rejections). But if that bridge is the only way across a deadly canyon, and there is no other bridge in sight, people will claim that bridge is strong enough.
They will defend the bridge’s validity because the alternative, staying on the cliffside forever, is unthinkable. In this state, the more cracks are pointed out, the more people defend the bridge. Pointing out the cracks without offering a new bridge feels like a threat to their survival.
Thomas Kuhn and the Structure of Cornered Revolutions
My insight aligns beautifully with, and extends, the work of Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn argued in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that scientists do not abandon a paradigm simply because it is falsified. They only abandon it when a viable rival appears.
Until that rival appears, the scientific community is cornered. This occurs precisely in the phase preceding the scientific revolution, a period when the current paradigm is experiencing anomalies but no new paradigm has yet emerged that can explain them.
My insight explains the period Kuhn calls Crisis. During a crisis, the anomalies (rejections) pile up. In a Popperian world, the theory should be dead. But in the real world, the theory becomes the center of intense effort and the community works harder than ever to save it.
The rejection actually creates a massive surge of intellectual energy directed at preserving the cornered model, instead of removing it from the stage.
The Strength of Having No Choice
People often mistake lack of choice for agreement. In the philosophy of science, it is assumed that if everyone accepts a theory, it must be because the theory is winning the war of ideas. But my insight reveals a darker truth: a theory often wins not because it is great, but because it is the last one standing.
Indeed, this insight mentions that having no alternative for a theory makes the current theory stronger, identifying a monopolistic power dynamic in human thought.
- If theory A is 60% accurate and has no rival, it is 100% dominant.
- If theory A is 90% accurate but has a rival (Theory B) that is 91% accurate, Theory A becomes defeated.
Strength, therefore, is not an absolute value of truth, but a relative value of necessity. The flaws and defects that would weaken a theory normally strengthen that theory in the absence of an alternative.
Indeed, every time we find a place where a current theory breaks, it does not get replaced. Instead, we cling to it more to keep the only bridge standing.
Conclusion: The Survival of the Only
Karl Popper was an idealist. He believed in a world where we could be detached enough to throw away our ideas the moment they failed.
Thomas Kuhn, by contrast, took a more realistic view. He understood that scientists do not abandon a paradigm simply because it is falsified. They only abandon it when a viable rival appears.
The Theory of Cornered Rational Choice grounds us in the reality of the human condition. When a boxer is trapped in the corner of the ring with no way out, more pressure will not make them surrender. It will provoke them to attack their opponent with greater intensity.
The persistence of a theory in the face of rejection is a testament to our need for order. It proves that in the history of human thought, the presence of a flaw is never as powerful as the absence of an alternative. We do not follow the greatest theories. We follow the ones that have not left us stranded yet.
Likewise, we are rational, but it is the rationality of a prisoner who is testing their only escape route.
