Differences

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

--- wrong [2025/08/17 15:42] – ultracomfy
+++ wrong [2025/08/17 16:19] (current) – removed ultracomfy
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<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.
-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.
-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.