I was gonna say. This is very much discourse. It's someone's musings. What's so cringy about this? It never claims to be scientific; it never attempts to persuade or even really argue.
100% your twitter reference.
100% your twitter reference.
And why does this matter, at least plausibly? In my opinion, because of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect
I believe that if humans get the idea in their head that they have no free will, it could be detrimental to rising to serious challenges like climate change, inequality, etc.
In speaking. I try to approach things as always mutable. If I put a disclaimer in front of everything I state (when I perceive the I talk about to always be some form of a hypothesis based on the data that I currently have), it tends to slow down discourse and get very messy. In my mind, because I've already accepted the potential for bad data-- that's how I approach others works/papers. There are no absolute truths in anyone's words (or very likely period).
I understand your concerns around this (and at least from my current understanding of our social/political issues) and I agree. It is extremely dangerous and detrimental to hold beliefs like that. However, one could argue that a substantial portion of our society already holds those beliefs. They ignore the free will that they have and operate inside of the system that they perceive.
No real arguments/points here. Just chewing on things/"thinking out-loud". I think it's equally important for people to be able to share thoughts in an unformed state (in the right environment).
Unsurprisingly, I am interested in some clarification:
> If I put a disclaimer in front of everything I state (when I perceive the I talk about to always be some form of a hypothesis based on the data that I currently have), it tends to slow down discourse and get very messy.
The domain of science typically involves overwhelming (in a text conversation scenario) amounts of complexity as well....but they realized the problem, found a way to manage it, and went on to produce amazing results. Unfortunately, science does not have mastery over all of reality (confident claims and perceptions to the contrary notwithstanding). Perhaps something similar could be done in other domains.
As it is, it seems to me that thinking on top of approximations of reality that are perceived as reality itself is sub-optimal, and dangerous. I think most people could appreciate this in the case of science, but in other domains it is very often considered absurd.
> In my mind, because I've already accepted the potential for bad data-- that's how I approach others works/papers.
"In my mind" - watch out! :)
> There are no absolute truths in anyone's words (or very likely period).
Disagree - if one has decent skills in set theory, abstraction/decomposition, and tautological framing of ideas, it is not difficult at all to achieve absolute (but vague/non-comprehensive) truth. That's not the finish line, but you can get WAY further down the track than someone who does not have such abilities.
> I understand your concerns around this (and at least from my current understanding of our social/political issues) and I agree. It is extremely dangerous and detrimental to hold beliefs like that.
And as far as I can tell: this is the methodology of the vast majority (90%+++) of people....and some of these are The Literal Experts, or people who believe they know The Way humanity needs to go to solve climate change. What could go wrong!!??
>> If I put a disclaimer in front of everything I state (when I perceive the I talk about to always be some form of a hypothesis based on the data that I currently have), it tends to slow down discourse and get very messy.
> The domain of science typically involves overwhelming (in a text conversation scenario) amounts of complexity as well....but they realized the problem, found a way to manage it, and went on to produce amazing results. Unfortunately, science does not have mastery over all of reality (confident claims and perceptions to the contrary notwithstanding). Perhaps something similar could be done in other domains.
I think using science here was an exceptional example. It's good to note that the scientific process itself has evolved over time. I don't have all the answers, but I'm happy to re-analyze and adjust my processes given new data
> As it is, it seems to me that thinking on top of approximations of reality that are perceived as reality itself is sub-optimal, and dangerous. I think most people could appreciate this in the case of science, but in other domains it is very often considered absurd.
I can agree with that in part. Ideas must come from somewhere though. Sometimes that source is abstract and we don't understand all of the various linkages/connections; sometimes it's a known source and we understand in part all the things they are connected to. I think it's important to enable discourse and "thinking out loud" by labelling/tagging things as such.
>> In my mind, because I've already accepted the potential for bad data-- that's how I approach others works/papers.
>"In my mind" - watch out! :)
I'm comfortable with having my ideas challenged because I'm open to revising them. I should probably change this to 'my methodology is' or something more distinct. Merely attempting to convey here that I (try) to use a conscious approach when approaching others works. And I attempt to challenge myself regarding my own ideas on a regular basis.
> Disagree - if one has decent skills in set theory, abstraction/decomposition, and tautological framing of ideas, it is not difficult at all to achieve absolute (but vague/non-comprehensive) truth. That's not the finish line, but you can get WAY further down the track than someone who does not have such abilities.
I would argue that's not an absolute ;) But instead, I think both of our points, the important thing to identify is that it's not the finish line. It can be modified or adjusted or simply re-analyzed given new data.
Society seems to tend to think of ideas as a binary when there are often various levels of maturity involved. What's important to me in this instance is that the product isn't labelled as final. Change is a constant, even if things don't change directly, our information about them and perception of them do, which requires re-evaluating things often. Science is great at doing this, people (in general) are not. I think that many people would benefit from approaching things in a more scientific and/or philosophical fashion.
> I understand your concerns around this (and at least from my current understanding of our social/political issues) and I agree. It is extremely dangerous and detrimental to hold beliefs like that.
> And as far as I can tell: this is the methodology of the vast majority (90%+++) of people....and some of these are The Literal Experts, or people who believe they know The Way humanity needs to go to solve climate change. What could go wrong!!??
Expert is a dangerous word. An expert to me is someone that can adapt a methodology/approach. Not dogmatic follow something. I'd argue that for someone to be an expert in their field, they need to be able to understand and account for incoming data. I'd agree with you on that point. Many experts spout dogma, sometimes we're just lucky/unlucky that they aren't spouting the dogma we agree with.
I appreciate the discourse!
> I think using science here was an exceptional example. It's good to note that the scientific process itself has evolved over time. I don't have all the answers, but I'm happy to re-analyze and adjust my processes given new data
Two issues I see here:
a) We lack a sophisticated framework for non-materialistic analysis
b) You're likely better than average, but generally speaking: people's self-assessment of their willingness and ability to reconsider their beliefs is famously not great - politics and social media are just two institutions that capitalize on this bug
> I can agree with that in part. Ideas must come from somewhere though. Sometimes that source is abstract and we don't understand all of the various linkages/connections; sometimes it's a known source and we understand in part all the things they are connected to. I think it's important to enable discourse and "thinking out loud" by labelling/tagging things as such.
I think it would be useful to assemble a collection of techniques and design a framework. Science is exceptional at this with respect to the physical realm of reality, but the metaphysical realm remains a wild west shit show, and most people are only vaguely aware of the phenomenon.
> I'm comfortable with having my ideas challenged because I'm open to revising them. I should probably change this to 'my methodology is' or something more distinct. Merely attempting to convey here that I (try) to use a conscious approach when approaching others works. And I attempt to challenge myself regarding my own ideas on a regular basis.
Some people are quite excellent, and you seem to actually take it seriously, but there are hard limits on what an individual is capable of for evolutionary reasons. I think humanity could benefit from a team work approach.
> I would argue that's not an absolute ;) But instead, I think both of our points, the important thing to identify is that it's not the finish line. It can be modified or adjusted or simply re-analyzed given new data.
For discrete propositions, absolute tautological truth can be easily reached.
But 100% agreement on the finish line part - this is but one technique among many one should have in their toolkit. But as it is, humanity seems to have little realization that they are even involved in a race of sorts, and the clock keeps ticking.
> Society seems to tend to think of ideas as a binary when there are often various levels of maturity involved. What's important to me in this instance is that the product isn't labelled as final. Change is a constant...
Only if viewed as a binary (is some change happening, True/False?), but the rate of change and styles of change are important other variables.
> Science is great at doing this...
In the physical realm, agreed, but for the most part (sociology and psychology being the exceptions), it mostly doesn't even try to grapple with metaphysical matters. Worse: a lot of "scientific thinkers" I encounter on the internet (including right here on HN) believe that metaphysics is "woo woo" or nonexistent, and rarely do I hear anyone from the institution of science saying otherwise. If you ask me, science behaves an awful lot like religion at higher levels of abstraction (which shouldn't be all that surprising if one thinks about it in some depth: in all cases, it is the mind grappling with ideas, though there are some important object level differences).
> I think that many people would benefit from approaching things in a more scientific and/or philosophical fashion.
Less The Science and more Actual Philosophy, please! (Interestingly, in my experience a lot of philosophers aren't great at actually practicing of what they've learned in school, as opposed to memorizing and regurgitating it - for example: try practicing epistemology in a philosophy meetup and watch tempers flare!).
> Expert is a dangerous word.
Agreed - and powerful!
There are many words that have seemingly magical powers, and many of these words can be spotted being deployed on a daily basis by "trustworthy" journalists - no wonder people are so confused!
> An expert to me is someone that can adapt a methodology/approach. Not dogmatic follow something. I'd argue that for someone to be an expert in their field, they need to be able to understand and account for incoming data.
Watch out for binaries! (I do agree though.)
> I'd agree with you on that point. Many experts spout dogma, sometimes we're just lucky/unlucky that they aren't spouting the dogma we agree with.
Unfortunately: despite science tooting its own horn about how good it is at peer review, it seems only when it is explicitly stated as part of a formal methodology do they take it very seriously. (In case it isn't clear: I have a pretty strong "anti-science" bias!)
> I appreciate the discourse!
Me too, it's a rare treat.