When Facts Fall Short: Tackling Unfalsifiable Claims in Sustainability Education
Intro
The natural sciences thrive on testable hypotheses, observable outcomes, and empirical rigor. But education—especially sustainability education—is messier (e.g., Berliner, 2002). Here, we encounter (more or less) persuasive claims that seem visionary or morally compelling, yet at times lack a crucial feature: falsifiability.
Think of statements like “21st century skills will solve the climate crisis,” or “Only teachers who live sustainably should teach sustainability.” How do we refute these? Can we? Should we?
Why Falsifiability Matters
Karl Popper (1963) emphasized falsifiability as a hallmark of science: a claim is scientific only if it can, in principle, be disproven. If no evidence could refute it, the claim remains outside empirical science. Carl Sagan illustrated this with his famous “dragon in my garage” analogy: if the dragon’s presence is endlessly immunized from falsification, the claim becomes meaningless.
Types of Unfalsifiable Claims
Unfalsifiable claims come in various forms (e.g., Green, 2021):
- Normative/value-based: “Sustainability education must promote social justice.”
- Subjective: “I feel more connected to nature when I teach outdoors.”
- Vague: “The Inner Development Goals are the panacea.”
- Speculative/futuristic: “Sustainability education will save humanity.”
- Supernatural/metaphysical: “Climate change is divine punishment.”
Such statements may resonate emotionally or ethically, but they evade empirical testing.
The Problem in (Sustainability) Education
In contrast to natural sciences, educational research most of the time has to deal with context-sensitive, difficult to measure phenomena and situations in which you can not control for all factors. Berliner (2002) provocatively called it “the hardest science of all.” This complexity doesn’t excuse intellectual laziness—but it does explain why unfalsifiable claims flourish.
While some claims (e.g., myths of climate science denial, “climate change is a hoax”) are easily rebutted by (a consilience of theoretical and empirical) evidence, others resist scrutiny. Take, for instance, “Sustainability education is not urgent—we’ve got time” or “Direct instruction is outdated; only exploratory learning works”. These feel insightful, but defy falsifiability. Engaging with them in a critical and constructive manner is challenging—but necessary. Without careful scrutiny, such statements can become uncritical dogma, shaping curricula and policy with no accountability.
So, how can we engage with such claims without sliding into absolute relativism aka anything goes—or becoming passive bystanders to misleading and harmful educational fads?
When Facts Don’t Work, Try Logic
Dr. John Cook, guest on the Sustainability Education Podcast, proposes a useful distinction: fact-based vs. logic-based approaches. While fact-checking works for testable claims (“The Arctic is losing ice mass”), it falters with vague claims, value statements, or predictions.
In these cases, Cook recommends a logic-based strategy. Don’t ask if the claim is true or false. Ask: Is it misleading? Does it use for instance:
- Fake experts (e.g., citing business gurus as authorities on education)?
- Logical fallacies (e.g., circular reasoning or special pleading)?
- Impossible expectations (e.g., education must instantly transform society)?
- Cherry-picking (e.g., citing one successful case study while ignoring dozens of failures)?
- Conspiracy theories (e.g., UNESCO’s hidden sustainability agenda)?
This taxonomy, originally developed to combat science denial, is equally useful in educational discourse where persuasive yet misleading rhetoric often dominates.
Examples of Unfalsifiable Claims in Sustainability Education
To make this more concrete, let us look at two case examples.
Example 1: “21st-Century Skills Will Save the World”
This claim rests on vague terms (“skills,” “save”), appeals to novelty, and utopian assumptions. Are these skills new? Proven? Sufficient? Frequently, they are neither clearly defined nor causally linked to sustainability outcomes. As Rotherham & Willingham (2010) or Kalz (2023) argue, such buzzword-laden pseudo-innovative frameworks can distract from concrete and meaningful action. Here, logic-based analysis helps. Ask: What would falsify this claim? Are we dealing with an appeal to novelty? Vagueness? Hidden assumptions? Are we avoiding current responsibilities by deferring change to an imagined future.
Example 2: “Only Sustainability Role Models Should Teach Sustainability”
This conflates personal values with professional competence. It introduces moral purity tests that risk special pleading: if the “role model” fails, we redefine them out of the category. It’s ad hoc reasoning that immunizes the belief from critique. Instead, ask: – Does this confuse ethical behavior with pedagogical skill? Are we applying standards here we wouldn’t tolerate elsewhere? Is this a slippery slope toward gatekeeping?
Why We Should Still Engage
Even if unfalsifiable and difficult to debunk, questionable claims can’t be ignored (Siegel, 2024b). They shape discourse, practice, and institutional decisions. Instead of attempting direct falsification, we can apply mythbusting strategies:
- Use analogies, parallel arguments, and value squares to reveal underlying tensions of values (Siegel, 2024a).
- Point to faulty reasoning, cognitive and socio-affective drivers of questionable beliefs.
- clarifying questions to sharpen terms and surface assumptions.
- And we can shift our aim: not to prove others wrong, but to explore whether a claim is misleading—logically incoherent, poorly defined, or distractingly vague.
Concluding Thoughts
Education deals with complex phenomena in teaching and learning. Unlike the natural sciences, education deals with concepts and processes that you can’t see or measure directly. We all hold unfalsifiable beliefs. The task isn’t to eliminate them—but to recognize, evaluate, and contextualize them. When facts fail, logic must take over. By identifying misleading assumptions, sharpening vague claims, and fostering epistemic responsibility, we cut through the Gordian knot of how to deal with unfalsifiable claims in sustainability education. This means refusing to settle for lofty slogans or seductive fatalism.
📚 References
- Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational Research: The Hardest Science of All. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3594389
- Diethelm, P., & McKee, M. (2009). Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?. European journal of public health, 19(1), 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn139
- Green, T. (2021). Why trying to prove yourself wrong is the key to being right. https://thinkingispower.com/why-trying-to-prove-yourself-wrong-is-the-key-to-being-right/
- Kalz, M. (2023). Zurück in die Zukunft? Eine literaturbasierte Kritik der Zukunftskompetenzen. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie Und Praxis Der Medienbildung, 2023(Occasional Papers), 332–352. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/00/2023.11.19.X
- Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
- Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2010). 21st-century” skills: Not new, but a worthy challenge. American Educator, 17(1), 17–20. https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/RotherhamWillingham.pdf
- Siegel, S. T. (2024a). Making Tensions in Sustainability Education Visible: Using Value Squares for Reflection and Awareness. Evidence-informed Sustainability Education (EvSusEd). https://doi.org/10.58079/12m81
- Siegel, S. T. (2024b). A Battle We Can(‘t) Win? Why Mythbusting in Education Feels Like a Futile Fight We Can’t Afford to Lose. Evidence-informed Sustainability Education (EvSusEd). https://doi.org/10.58079/12m80
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Dr. Stefan T. Siegel (May 8, 2025). When Facts Fall Short: Tackling Unfalsifiable Claims in Sustainability Education. Evidence-informed Sustainability Education (EvSusEd). Retrieved May 22, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/13w7b