Ramblings

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Please contact the website administrator if you believe this to be in error.
<WRAP column right 18%>
{{page>Templates:Systems}}\\
{{page>Templates:Science}}
</WRAP>
~~Title:Probably Wrong~~
<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 ======
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.

I've learned over the years that I should stick to a few guiding motives:
  * Assume you are wrong, about everything.
  * If you think you're right, you just haven't been proven wrong yet((Or refuse to. / Or are unable to understand it.)).
  * 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.
  * 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.)).

I am probably wrong about the shape of the earth, too. I think spheroid earth is the most likely explanation to be correct, but I should be looking for evidence to contradict spheroid earth. And that's what we do! We and you and I and us, we're all looking... if anything comes up that contradicts spheroid earth, we will stop believing it. However, this also means being very pragmatic about beliefs that we //do// hold, which brings us to a conversation about..... [[politics]]. I'm so sorry.

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.

====== 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're saying? These people defend the shit they say //passionately//, how fucking stupid are 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>//**"**//</fs>
</WRAP>
<WRAP 80% column>
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
</WRAP>
<WRAP 5% leftalign column>
<fs xx-large>//**"**//</fs>
</WRAP>
</WRAP>
<WRAP centeralign>~Evelyn Beatrice Hall in "The Friends of Voltaire"</WRAP>
</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 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 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.