Why the SSH is Not Science

And why that makes it more, rather than less, reliable

One of the objections to the utility of the SSH is that it is not science. This is both a) irrelevant and b) untrue.

The first of the three aspects of Science is the process. The process, which is called scientody, goes like this:

1. Hypothesis

2. Experiment

3. Falsification

If falsified, the hypothesis is rejected and deemed to be scientifically false. If not falsified, the hypothesis is deemed potentially confirmable, with the more successful reproductions adding additional confidence to the reliability of the hypothesis, which can be upgraded to a theory, or even a law, by the second aspect of Science.

The second of the three aspects of Science is the profession. The profession, which is called scientistry, goes like this:

1. Articulation

2. Peer-Review

3. Publication

4. Citation

Once an experiment has been completed and the hypothesis has not been falsified, it can be articulated through a paper, subjected to peer-review, and published. If the publication is well-received, it will subsequently be cited in other papers written by other scientists, with the more citations adding more confidence to the reliability of the hypothesis.

It’s not Science until we say it is! Because white lab coats.

Also, once published and sufficiently cited, both by the professional journals and by the mainstream media, the hypothesis, now popularly regarded as a “scientific fact”, becomes part of the third of the three aspects of Science, the knowledge base, or scientage.

This is why evolution by natural selection is still considered to be “science” even though it has been comprehensively proven to be both a) false and b) impossible; once accepted by scientistry and established as scientage, it takes decades, if not generations, before Science can even begin to start correcting itself.

The Socio-Sexual Hierarchy is still officially at the Hypothesis stage, as there have been no substantive experiments performed to attempt its falsification. But this does not mean it is not “scientific”, it merely means that it is not established “scientific fact”. Therefore, it is factually untrue to say that the SSH is not science. It is merely a scientific hypothesis that has not yet been falsified.

Of course, the fact that more than 50 percent of all hypotheses that have been accepted as scientific facts a) cannot be reproduced successfully and b) have a very high probability of being false means that the utility of a hypothesis does not actually depend at all upon it having gone through this lengthy and unreliable eight-stage process of becoming science.

Which is why I always advise not worrying about what the scientists believe today, and simply testing out the various predictive models provided by the SSH and then deciding if they happen to be useful to you or not on the basis of those tests.