Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- probably_wrong [2025/08/23 13:05] – ultracomfy
+++ probably_wrong [2026/09/11 08:47] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 <WRAP centeralign>[[Science]]/[[Philosophy]]/[[Scientific Method]]/\\
 <fs xx-large>Probably Wrong</fs></WRAP>\\
-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, which is largely what we think today.
-====== About your own beliefs ======
+In essence, "probably wrong" is my reason to stay humble, in general and in particular about my beliefs. As a humankind, we have learned a lot and often 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't yet found the evidence that contradicts the current scientific consensus. We should always assume that such evidence exists, and that we just haven't found it yet.
-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't yet found the evidence that contradicts the current scientific consensus. We should always assume that such evidence exists, and that we just haven't found it yet.
-However, this isn't just a matter of "humankind" and "science". We are individuals, you and I. My personal beliefs have underwent several complete paradigm shifts throughout the years. I have grown a lot and learned even more, so I feel like my current views on, say, [[Utilitarianism]], are refined. But, I should really probably just assume that this is yet another step in a long, long path for me to find the truth. Why //wouldn't// my current understanding of a thing be just as wrong as my previous understanding of it, where I thought equally as much that I was right? I should assume that I am wrong about everything.
+See this example: 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, which lead us to our modern understanding of lighting.
+However, this isn't just a matter of "humankind" and "science". We are individuals, you and I. My personal beliefs have undergone several complete paradigm shifts throughout the years. I have grown a lot and learned even more, so I feel like my current views on, say, [[Utilitarianism]], are refined. But, I should really probably just assume that this is yet another step in a long, long path for me to find the truth. Why //wouldn't// my current understanding of a thing be just as wrong as my previous understanding of it, where I thought equally as much that I was right? I should assume that I am wrong about everything.
 I've learned over the years that I should stick to a few guiding motives:
@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
   * Look for ways in which you might be wrong. Find the weakest links in your argumentation.
   * Test your beliefs, have a go defending them to see how well they do.
-  * Never settle for "I'm not sure". If you're not sure about a link in your argumentation then you "don't know" and are probably wrong.
+  * When working on your beliefs, never settle for "I'm not sure". If you're not sure about a link in your argumentation then you "don't know" and are probably wrong.
   * Think about what it would take you to convince yourself otherwise. Think particularly hard about whether you could even be convinced by anything at all in the first place((This one takes a big shot at all kinds of religions, who will constantly move the goalposts to avoid changing their minds.)).
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 Just.. let us all just stay humble, yes? We definitely know much less than what we defend online. Or IRL, for that matter. Leave the debating to scientists. If you really wanna get into the weeds, become a scientist yourself.
-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 "[[science was wrong before]]". In fact, the assumption that we are wrong about things is exactly why science so often is less wrong than any other mode of persuasion. Scientific consensus is almost always the best approximation of the truth that we can get to with our current technology and knowledge. No other mode of persuasion allows you to change your mind on a thing as quickly as science does. All you need is strong evidence that contradicts the current paradigm. So, I want to be very clear, this is not about discrediting the scientific method. In science, assuming that you're wrong //works//, and that is exactly //why// science is so good. It is actually the best argument //in favor// of science.
+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 "[[science was wrong before]]" (or even "Science is probably wrong"). In fact, the assumption that we are wrong about things is exactly why science so often is less wrong than any other mode of persuasion. Scientific consensus is almost always the best approximation of the truth that we can get to with our current technology and knowledge. No other mode of persuasion allows you to change your mind on a thing as quickly as science does. All you need is strong evidence that contradicts the current paradigm. So, I want to be very clear, this is not about discrediting the scientific method. In science, assuming that you're wrong //works//, and that is exactly //why// science is so good. It is actually the best argument //in favor// of science.
 ====== A bit of perspective on being wrong ======
@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 </WRAP>
-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 //outrageous// and would have seen you burned along with them. They weren't even capable of fathoming a world without burning witches. Fast forward to today, we can fathom a world without burning witches, but there are still things us today can't fathom to live without. Those things are, by their very nature, very contentious. Some would say, for example, that a world without capitalism is impossible. Some say that a democracy is the only way we can live, but maybe in 500 years a technocratic society will laugh at our naivety. Maybe the [[veganism|vegans]] were right after all, and killing animals just because they "taste well" is wrong after all((Honestly, I find this one pretty convincing. I hope I won't forget to think more and eventually write about this.)). Or here is one that even I cannot see past: Murder is bad - I think that, but who am I to say whether it really is?
+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 //outrageous// and would have seen you burned along with them. They weren't even capable of fathoming a world without burning witches. Fast forward to today, we can fathom a world without burning witches, but there are still things us today can't fathom to live without. Those things are, by their very nature, very contentious. Some would say, for example, that a world without capitalism is impossible. Some say that a democracy is the only way we can live, but maybe in 500 years a technocratic society will laugh at our naivety. Maybe the [[veganism|vegans]] were right and killing animals just because they "taste well" is wrong after all((Honestly, I find this one pretty convincing. I hope I won't forget to think more and eventually write about this.)). Or here is one that even I cannot see past: Murder is bad - I think that, but who am I to say whether it really is?
-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/slowed societal progress for all of human history. Not to mention the political implications of letting the government police which thoughts and opinions we get to have.
+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/slowed societal progress for all of human history. Not to mention the political implications of letting the government police which opinions we get to have. This all applies to thoughts as well - you should be able to reign freely in your head, no matter how abhorrent someone else would find those thoughts.