PENSIERO IDEOLOGICO, METODO SCIENTIFICO E ATTITUDINE VERSO IL RISCHIO

Abstract

Building on Karl Popper’s theories on the falsifiability of scientific hypotheses, this contribution focuses on the relationship between the scientific method, ideological thinking, and risk attitudes. According to Popper, those who adopt the scientific method should be significantly less risk-averse than those with an ideological approach, as they are willing to see their theoretical hypothesis rejected by the data. Conversely, those following an ideological approach – when faced with empirical evidence that rejects their hypothesis – are inclined to defend their now-ideological hypothesis by employing what Popper calls “conventionalist stratagems.” These involve reacting ex post by opportunistically modifying the initial hypothesis and/or changing the weights assigned to various criteria of validity/truthfulness. Here, I propose using the frequency of these conventionalist stratagems as a means to measure individual preferences for the ideological approach versus the scientific method. The essay then outlines some empirical strategies to investigate the relationship between these preferences and risk attitudes, and discusses the structural decline in the “disruptiveness” of scientific discoveries as a possible reflection of a growing risk aversion among successive cohorts of researchers.