Forecasting is about assigning probabilities to future events.
Falsification is about testing whether an idea can survive clearly defined attempts to prove it false.
Forecasting asks, how likely is this to happen?
Falsification asks, what would prove this wrong, and has that happened?
This matters because not every meaningful idea resolves cleanly into a forecastable event.
For example, “UBI reduces crime” or “MoND is a better fit than dark matter at low accelerations” are not yes-or-no outcomes with clean resolution dates. They are explanatoryclaims that require careful, falsifiable framing and rigorous testing - not just a probability score.
Scientists, institutions, startups, or EA orgs could publish hypotheses with explicit bounties for refutation. For example:
“We offer $500 to anyone who can provide a reproducible counterexample to this published claim under defined criteria.”
This flips the incentive structure. Instead of just publishing or forecasting, you’re paying to be proven wrong, and rewarding others for helping you find errors early.
For startups, this means posting falsifiable assumptions about product-market fit, growth loops, or user retention, and inviting outsiders to challenge them.
For EA orgs, it means exposing theories of change to public scrutiny, backed by incentives for constructive falsification.
It turns falsification into a public good, not just a peer review ritual. And it introduces a new tool for intellectual quality control: pay to test your beliefs.
Forecasting tells you what might happen.
Falsification tells you whether your thinking can survive contact with reality.
Both are valuable, but they answer different questions, and serve different parts of the truth-seeking stack.
This is the first decent post I’ve read on the subject on this forum. Thank you, it gives me hope that EA has not completely lost the plot when it comes to the intersection between animal advocacy and diet.
I would add that for those of us that eat a Mediterranean diet, Veganism presents a significant trade-off in terms of diet quality.
For those of us in Southern Europe, it also has a trade-off on environmental impact due to the nature of agro-silvo-pastoralism here (although that is outside of the scope of a mere forum comment).
Happy to have a new significant contribution from Peter Singer, but disappointed to read that this will further fuel the fallacy that meat production contributes to climate change due to cattle belching.
Excellent to see the U.K. take a leading role in this, and seeing the political narrative finally shift from just climate change and occasionally sprinkles of pandemics and nuclear war, to all kinds of X risk.
I must say, this anxiety is what happens when people adopt Utilitarianism as a moral philosophy instead of the actual goal of EA - to donate a certain % of first world incomes in an effective way. The jump to “maximise utility always” is one that can only lead to paralysis, anxiety, and nihilism, as many more capable than me have pointed out.
Thanks for sharing. This is an example of why naive utilitarianism can be harmful. EA needs to more clearly adopt a framework with duties of care, and personal rights. I dare call it “common sense ethics”.
I would add that having children in the West is a huge net good on society, even if that means fewer shrimp have their welfare improved. (We can think about EY’s argument on hiccups here)
The economy is a positive sum game, meaning children add more than they take, and there simply would be no wealth to distribute otherwise. If we think on a long enough time horizon, the only way to improve everyone’s welfare significantly is by having more children in productive areas.
I completely agree with this. As a (Americans read: neo) Liberal that thinks the Green movement does far more harm than good, some of the political campaigning I’ve seen EAs do really puts me off and makes me question the entire movement. SBF’s lobbying of politicians in the US is another example of egregious misuse of funds.
Until those checks and balances are in place, we should be focusing on directing funds to the most impactful causes. That should be the beginning and end of EA in my opinion. Politics is almost never the best ROI approach to anything, using EA’s own methodology to calculate impact. There will of course be exceptions, but I find it hard to believe any amount of money will be better spent trying to influence a government as opposed to buying malaria nets.
We also need to avoid thinking and framing our actions as a group identity. It’s to be expected that people come to different and opposing conclusions even within a movement with clear stated principles. As such, political action shouldn’t be done in the name of the group as a whole.
Good question. The core difference is this:
Forecasting is about assigning probabilities to future events.
Falsification is about testing whether an idea can survive clearly defined attempts to prove it false.
Forecasting asks, how likely is this to happen?
Falsification asks, what would prove this wrong, and has that happened?
This matters because not every meaningful idea resolves cleanly into a forecastable event.
For example, “UBI reduces crime” or “MoND is a better fit than dark matter at low accelerations” are not yes-or-no outcomes with clean resolution dates. They are explanatory claims that require careful, falsifiable framing and rigorous testing - not just a probability score.
Scientists, institutions, startups, or EA orgs could publish hypotheses with explicit bounties for refutation. For example:
“We offer $500 to anyone who can provide a reproducible counterexample to this published claim under defined criteria.”
This flips the incentive structure. Instead of just publishing or forecasting, you’re paying to be proven wrong, and rewarding others for helping you find errors early.
For startups, this means posting falsifiable assumptions about product-market fit, growth loops, or user retention, and inviting outsiders to challenge them.
For EA orgs, it means exposing theories of change to public scrutiny, backed by incentives for constructive falsification.
It turns falsification into a public good, not just a peer review ritual. And it introduces a new tool for intellectual quality control: pay to test your beliefs.
Forecasting tells you what might happen.
Falsification tells you whether your thinking can survive contact with reality.
Both are valuable, but they answer different questions, and serve different parts of the truth-seeking stack.
This is the first decent post I’ve read on the subject on this forum. Thank you, it gives me hope that EA has not completely lost the plot when it comes to the intersection between animal advocacy and diet.
I would add that for those of us that eat a Mediterranean diet, Veganism presents a significant trade-off in terms of diet quality.
For those of us in Southern Europe, it also has a trade-off on environmental impact due to the nature of agro-silvo-pastoralism here (although that is outside of the scope of a mere forum comment).
Happy to have a new significant contribution from Peter Singer, but disappointed to read that this will further fuel the fallacy that meat production contributes to climate change due to cattle belching.
Excellent to see the U.K. take a leading role in this, and seeing the political narrative finally shift from just climate change and occasionally sprinkles of pandemics and nuclear war, to all kinds of X risk.
This is really fantastic news overall! 👏
Not sure on the dehorning and beak trimming though, that sounds like virtue signalling more so than an evidence based policy.
Not sure dehorning would be a good thing considering the deaths and mutilations caused by animals using their horns.
Great post!
I must say, this anxiety is what happens when people adopt Utilitarianism as a moral philosophy instead of the actual goal of EA - to donate a certain % of first world incomes in an effective way. The jump to “maximise utility always” is one that can only lead to paralysis, anxiety, and nihilism, as many more capable than me have pointed out.
Thanks for sharing. This is an example of why naive utilitarianism can be harmful. EA needs to more clearly adopt a framework with duties of care, and personal rights. I dare call it “common sense ethics”.
I would add that having children in the West is a huge net good on society, even if that means fewer shrimp have their welfare improved. (We can think about EY’s argument on hiccups here)
The economy is a positive sum game, meaning children add more than they take, and there simply would be no wealth to distribute otherwise. If we think on a long enough time horizon, the only way to improve everyone’s welfare significantly is by having more children in productive areas.
Agreed. The “KPI” here should be welfare, not deaths.
This is more or less irrelevant if those deaths cause no suffering.
Still, very interesting analysis. Thanks for sharing OP.
I completely agree with this. As a (Americans read: neo) Liberal that thinks the Green movement does far more harm than good, some of the political campaigning I’ve seen EAs do really puts me off and makes me question the entire movement. SBF’s lobbying of politicians in the US is another example of egregious misuse of funds.
Until those checks and balances are in place, we should be focusing on directing funds to the most impactful causes. That should be the beginning and end of EA in my opinion. Politics is almost never the best ROI approach to anything, using EA’s own methodology to calculate impact. There will of course be exceptions, but I find it hard to believe any amount of money will be better spent trying to influence a government as opposed to buying malaria nets.
We also need to avoid thinking and framing our actions as a group identity. It’s to be expected that people come to different and opposing conclusions even within a movement with clear stated principles. As such, political action shouldn’t be done in the name of the group as a whole.