The evidence
Claims that cannot be wrong
Both sides have one. They are the most-repeated claims in the argument and they cannot be wrong, which is not the same as being right.
Claims this part is about, and what each was answered with
New starters take longer to become productive remotely
Empirical→EvidenceThe one claim answered with evidence that measured it
Productivity fell when we went remote
Empirical→DataRemote workers put in longer hours than office workers
Empirical·Nothing; it was never answeredthree claims · three empirical · none of the answered ones was answered in the wrong kind · one was never answered at all
Three empirical claims with three different fates.
Two claims on this record have a particular structure: they are stated in a form that no observation could contradict, and both are among the most repeated things anybody said.
- "Something is lost when people are not together."
- "The tools have replaced what the office used to do."
One from each side. Neither can be wrong as stated.
Why neither can be wrong
The first does not say what is lost. Any observation is consistent with something having been lost, including an observation of everything going well — the loss might be invisible, or in the future, or in the thing you cannot see because you no longer have it.
The second does not say what was being replaced. Any shortcoming can be attributed to a tool not yet adopted, any success to the tools working, and there is no list against which the claim could be scored.
Both are, in their own terms, true. They are also empty, and the emptiness is what makes them durable.
Why both sides reach for one
Because at a certain point in an argument an unfalsifiable claim is the only position that cannot be lost.
Specific claims have been contested and some have fallen. The general version survives everything, and retreating to it feels like holding firm rather than giving up ground. Both sides do this and both read the other's version as evasion while experiencing their own as principle.
Opening them
Both open the same way, and it is not by challenging them.
What is the thing that is lost? If we could name one, could we look at whether it is?
What did the office do that we needed replaced? If we wrote the list, which ones do you think are still open?
Each invites the person to convert their own claim into something specific, which is a move they can make without losing anything. The tone has to be genuine — this works when you actually want the list, and fails completely when it is a trap being sprung.
What happens when they open
On this record one of them did open, part way, and it was instructive.
Pressed gently on what was lost, the person produced three things: new people learning by overhearing, disagreements that writing could not settle, and knowing what colleagues are like. All three are specific. The first became the measurement described elsewhere on this site, and it was supported. The second is checkable in principle and nobody has. The third is almost certainly true and almost certainly unmeasurable.
A claim that could not be wrong turned into three claims that could, of which one was tested and held.
That is the best possible outcome of an exchange in this argument, and it took one question asked without an edge in it.
The symmetrical warning
If you catch the other side using an unfalsifiable claim and feel pleased about it, check your own next three sentences.
The urge to retreat to the general version arrives at exactly the moment you feel you have the upper hand — because that is when the specific version becomes risky. On this record both sides reached for theirs in the same meeting, within about ten minutes of each other.
The third one, which both sides share
There is a claim on this record that belongs to neither side and cannot be wrong either: it depends on the team.
It is true, it is said constantly, and as stated it forecloses nothing. Any arrangement is consistent with it, any objection can be met with it, and nobody has ever had to defend it.
It becomes useful only when somebody says depends how? — at which point it turns into a set of specific claims about which kinds of work and which stages of a career, several of which are checkable and one of which was checked on this record.
Why opening these is worth doing even when it goes against you
The instinct is to open the other side's unfalsifiable claim and leave your own alone. It is worth resisting, for a self-interested reason.
An unfalsifiable claim cannot win anything. It can only hold ground. The specific version is the only one that can actually convince somebody, because it is the only one that could have been wrong and was not.
On this record the one claim that was opened and then supported did more for the position it belonged to than a year of the general version had done.