Ramblings

This is an old revision of the document!

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.

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 yet¹⁾.
• 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 place²⁾.

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.