probably_wrong
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
probably_wrong [2025/08/18 11:42] – ultracomfy | probably_wrong [2025/08/23 15:07] (current) – ultracomfy | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Early people attributed lightning strikes to wrathful gods. Aristotle thought lightnings were caused by dry exhalations in the sky that ignited when compressed in clouds. Scholars in the middle ages put lightnings down to vapors, maybe fiery vapors. Later on, the combustion of sulfurous or oily substances was taken as the reason for lightning. It was only in the 17th century that people started thinking about static electricity, | Early people attributed lightning strikes to wrathful gods. Aristotle thought lightnings were caused by dry exhalations in the sky that ignited when compressed in clouds. Scholars in the middle ages put lightnings down to vapors, maybe fiery vapors. Later on, the combustion of sulfurous or oily substances was taken as the reason for lightning. It was only in the 17th century that people started thinking about static electricity, | ||
+ | ====== About your own beliefs ====== | ||
As a humankind, we have learned a lot and always thought there isn't more to learn. As good scientists, we change our beliefs when we find evidence that contradicts our current understanding. I think it is our duty as scientists to inquire, to find more ways in which we are wrong. If we think we are right, we think so because we probably just haven' | As a humankind, we have learned a lot and always thought there isn't more to learn. As good scientists, we change our beliefs when we find evidence that contradicts our current understanding. I think it is our duty as scientists to inquire, to find more ways in which we are wrong. If we think we are right, we think so because we probably just haven' | ||
Line 25: | Line 26: | ||
Also, don't even think about freebooting this as an easy anti-science talking point. This is not about discrediting the scientific consensus on the basis of " | Also, don't even think about freebooting this as an easy anti-science talking point. This is not about discrediting the scientific consensus on the basis of " | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====== A bit of perspective on being wrong ====== | ||
+ | It is easy to get mad at people of, for example, other political persuasions. When I look at the other side of the coin and see how they try to falsify some of the claims of my political persuasion, it is sometimes very hard not to think that these people are utterly stupid - how can they not see how obviously wrong it is what they' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Looking back at my life, I can tell you that I am a fucking moron. I am fucking stupid. I have, with inexplicable confidence, defended the dumbest and wrongest beliefs imaginable. Whatever picture I have in mind of those other people, I am literally the perfect match of that picture. So what do we do with this? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Well, I think it is very human to be confidently wrong about the most obviously wrong and contradictory things. We just //are not// rational creatures. It's not just that I was wrong about really dumb thing in the past, but it's also that I cannot possibly know what I am wrong about these days. This is why I don't think we should judge people too hard for being wrong in the dumbest, most obvious ways - whether it's yourself or others. What I judge myself for is for being vocal about things that I was wrong about. No clue what you're talking about? - Just shut up and inform yourself. That's what I should have done. And make myself more aware of the emotions that were guiding me into being stubborn about a belief. It is very easy to cross the point of no return beyond which your brain just cannot allow itself anymore to be wrong and will do the funniest, jankiest mental gymnastics to see itself right, even in the face of the most overwhelming and undeniable evidence. This is why I say to check whether you are still at a point where you even could be convinced //at all//, because oftentimes your emotions can make you feel like you just cannot allow yourself to be wrong and will just refuse //any// evidence regardless of merit. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====== Wrong as a political philosophy ====== | ||
+ | <WRAP box> | ||
+ | <WRAP centeralign group> | ||
+ | <WRAP 5% rightalign column> | ||
+ | <fs xx-large>// | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | <WRAP 80% column> | ||
+ | I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | <WRAP 5% leftalign column> | ||
+ | <fs xx-large>// | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | <WRAP centeralign> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | The possibility of being wrong is why freedom of speech and freedom of thought exist. We like to think that we are smart because we don't burn witches anymore. Back in the days, trying to argue that burning witches might actually be bad would have been // | ||
+ | |||
+ | Either way, it is important for our society to at least //allow// even the fringest and most outrageous opinions. Injecting ourselves into that process and dictating which opinions are acceptable - no matter how good our reasoning - commits the same mistake that has stopped/ |
probably_wrong.1755510139.txt.gz · Last modified: 2025/08/18 11:42 by ultracomfy