I regularly tell my HS science students that science “fails forward” and that showing a hypothesis is demonstrably wrong is one of the most important things in science - so important that I wish there was a Nobel Prize every year for “best wrong hypothesis.”
One of my favorite things in life is being right (which I realize is grating) so whenever someone points out that I am wrong about something (with evidence) I thank them so I can try to be right the next time.
As I age, however, I keep finding out more and more things that I really THOUGHT were right for much of my life were, alas, not.
If one is not prepared for the inevitability of moving forward when a strongly held belief fails then it makes it REALLY hard to figure out anything about the universe or even about one’s own place in it.
Kathryn Schulz's book, "Being Wrong: Adventures on the Margin of Error" was revelatory for me. Rather than shunning error or trying to avoid it, I realized that acceptance of the inevitability of error was a kind of freedom. In "The Name of the Rose", William of Baskerville says that, instead of conceiving of one error, he imagines many, so that he becomes a slave to none.
As a tech guy, I have spent most of my work as an architect and advisor -- aware of relativity, fallibility, and fashion and taking my lumps on all.
"Spock, not Kirk," my personal career motto. Having not always succeeded in avoiding "being the Kirk", the leader pressure and reward system (from above, side, and below) is to be the binary authority and never dwell too deeply or too long on "gray" -- for the majority of the tribe, just not a good look. And so it goes.
Also not for nothin’ but this post seems pretty close to political for a Substack that claims it won’t be about politics. That is explicitly NOT a complaint (because politics today has become endemic to our daily lives in a way that only happens when things are going seriously sideways) - just an observation.
Nothing beats the Scientific Method, IMO. However, it can take a long time for an individual to go through the process in their lives--although this is a perfectly acceptable way to learn the method. Even in one's daily life there is reproducibility. In a world where we cannot rely on published science due to incompetence or carelessness or just flat-out dishonesty in the rush to be first, it becomes a huge problem. It's just more mis- or dis- information.
The wild card in all of these methods is the nagging feeling that people have that things don't add up. "What are they keeping from us?" is a perfectly acceptable viewpoint, though it does make one vulnerable also to mis- or dis- information.
Is there a method for a Very Large Context and reason? I suppose the problem there is how to accumulate the Very Large Context.
In my own life, I started at a very young age with the premise that the Universe was a rational place. The premise is irreplaceable. If you do not start there the whole thing falls apart. The context came along as needed for me. I have to admit that I have a very good intuition instinct, which I'm not sure how I acquired and may not be possible for everyone. That is: intuition in the sense of contemplation and/or immediate comprehension. It's a complicated method, but I have a lot of confidence in it working for other people as well, if directed by skilled teachers.
I regularly tell my HS science students that science “fails forward” and that showing a hypothesis is demonstrably wrong is one of the most important things in science - so important that I wish there was a Nobel Prize every year for “best wrong hypothesis.”
One of my favorite things in life is being right (which I realize is grating) so whenever someone points out that I am wrong about something (with evidence) I thank them so I can try to be right the next time.
As I age, however, I keep finding out more and more things that I really THOUGHT were right for much of my life were, alas, not.
If one is not prepared for the inevitability of moving forward when a strongly held belief fails then it makes it REALLY hard to figure out anything about the universe or even about one’s own place in it.
Kathryn Schulz's book, "Being Wrong: Adventures on the Margin of Error" was revelatory for me. Rather than shunning error or trying to avoid it, I realized that acceptance of the inevitability of error was a kind of freedom. In "The Name of the Rose", William of Baskerville says that, instead of conceiving of one error, he imagines many, so that he becomes a slave to none.
That was a really good book!
As a tech guy, I have spent most of my work as an architect and advisor -- aware of relativity, fallibility, and fashion and taking my lumps on all.
"Spock, not Kirk," my personal career motto. Having not always succeeded in avoiding "being the Kirk", the leader pressure and reward system (from above, side, and below) is to be the binary authority and never dwell too deeply or too long on "gray" -- for the majority of the tribe, just not a good look. And so it goes.
Thanks for sharing! Hadn't heard about this person before.
Could it have been called a priori because in many of those instances, people seem to plot the curve first and then pick data to fit?
Yeah. The logical fallacy does seem like a good place to start because it is ultimately about rationalization of one’s already held beliefs.
Also not for nothin’ but this post seems pretty close to political for a Substack that claims it won’t be about politics. That is explicitly NOT a complaint (because politics today has become endemic to our daily lives in a way that only happens when things are going seriously sideways) - just an observation.
Nothing beats the Scientific Method, IMO. However, it can take a long time for an individual to go through the process in their lives--although this is a perfectly acceptable way to learn the method. Even in one's daily life there is reproducibility. In a world where we cannot rely on published science due to incompetence or carelessness or just flat-out dishonesty in the rush to be first, it becomes a huge problem. It's just more mis- or dis- information.
The wild card in all of these methods is the nagging feeling that people have that things don't add up. "What are they keeping from us?" is a perfectly acceptable viewpoint, though it does make one vulnerable also to mis- or dis- information.
Is there a method for a Very Large Context and reason? I suppose the problem there is how to accumulate the Very Large Context.
In my own life, I started at a very young age with the premise that the Universe was a rational place. The premise is irreplaceable. If you do not start there the whole thing falls apart. The context came along as needed for me. I have to admit that I have a very good intuition instinct, which I'm not sure how I acquired and may not be possible for everyone. That is: intuition in the sense of contemplation and/or immediate comprehension. It's a complicated method, but I have a lot of confidence in it working for other people as well, if directed by skilled teachers.