Ask HN: How to tell what's true from false or right or wrong?

Many people here are writing about various techniques/books that talk about science, i.e., for distinguishing scientific truths from non-scientific falsehoods, but as a scientist myself (well ok, computer "scientist"), I think in some sense we give "science" too much credit. There are things we consider "truths" in science which are actually only a veneer on "beliefs as of today" -- i.e., not that far removed from even such non-scientific things as e.g. "religion".

This is very abstract, but more concretely, what I mean is that it helps to read about the philosophy/history of science. The canonical recommendation here is Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [1], but I also strongly recommend watching James Burke's Connections tv series [2] and then watching or reading his The Day the Universe Changed [3] to understand how our entire conception of "reality" or "truth" is so strongly determined by the technology of the time.

Finally, there are lots of "truths" in fields where this is no scientific basis to fall-back on -- politics, art, etc. For these, you have to seek out and find the best elucidators of each field (usually, but not always, books).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Rev...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_%28TV_series%29

[3]

Science has not much to say about truth - sciences can tell you what is not true and provide a current best understanding of something but very rarely does science talk about truth. Math and a few other things aside.

There was a really good TED talk (which got banned), challenging the implicit assumptions by science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

The talk didn't get "banned", it was merely disavowed by the TED organization, which interprets their mandate "ideas worth spreading" as excluding blatant pseudoscience such as the idea of "morphic resonance".

Effectively banned from the site.

Sorry but the scientific community needs to address a number of points that are raised. It may be psudoscience, but there are a number of things that can't be explained by science, and in these cases, looking for answers is better than ignoring the issue. In the talk he doesn't say any of these things are true, but seems to be exploring the possibility. I am sure when it was first suggested that the earth was round, that it sounded equally ridiculous.

> Effectively banned from the site

The TED organization decides which talks are worth "featuring". The two "banned" talks are actually far MORE prominent than all the talks they decide to simply not feature at all. TED is still hosting them, merely on a different page where they encourage discussion of the issues raised. You can easily find that page and engage the discussion there if you like.

> Sorry but the scientific community needs to address a number of points that are raised.

Does it? Says who? More to the point, does TED need to address those points, or is it okay for TED to say "no, this is just silly" until there's an actual there there in the form of, say, replicable results?

I would be careful to distinguish results that merely aren't explained by science from those that can't be. If they really can't be explained by "science", what's the point in addressing them? Why bother? That the earth was round could be explained by science. Did you mean to say instead that these points "run counter to conventional wisdom"?

If you think you have a case to make, why not just make it? What SPECIFIC "points" do you think he raises that "need to be addressed"?

Are you willing to support his views on, say, telepathy - including dog telepathy? Do you think his "ten dogmas" accurately reflect what scientific types believe? Some seemed pretty strawmannish to me. (It's easy to make yourself seem insightful if you are allowed to invent and caricature imaginary opposing views that you can then rail against.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

I can strongly recommend Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" from The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/01/03/baloney-de...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World

Perfect! thanks

Also:

Why People Believe Weird Things - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Things

Bad Science - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_%28book%29

> My point is are we suppose to just believe what we are told?

Not if you're science-literate. Remember that a scientist assumes an idea unaccompanied by evidence is most likely false, while a nonscientist assumes the opposite.

Let's say someone hears a claim about Bigfoot. If he's a scientist, he will assume Bigfoot is a myth until hard evidence appears. But a nonscientist (a person technically known as an airhead) believes that Bigfoot is real until he is proven not to exist. But consider the burden of evidence -- for the airhead to be dissuaded from belief in Bigfoot, something called proof of a negative would be required, which is an impossible evidentiary burden. After all, Bigfoot could be hiding under some rock on a faraway planet, which means he can't ever be conclusively disproven.

Science is an extremely productive outlook, and the modern world is largely defined by science and the scientific outlook. One of the reasons is that scientists don't waste time carrying other people's burdens of evidence, like a belief in Bigfoot.

> How do you regard something as creditable?

Solid, repeated, empirical evidence, created by multiple disinterested observers. Everything else is unsubstantiated rumor.

> How do you figure out the truth from false knowledge?

A skeptical outlook and an understanding of how science works.

http://arachnoid.com/building_science

In science, it's very simple (though not necessarily easy), a theory needs to have predictive power. Important caveat: predictive power about the future.

This way you can even test a hypothesis you don't even understand. Just get a prediction out of someone who does and see if it checks out without being otherwise obvious. Again, obvious beforehand, not afterwards. There are a couple of heavy tomes you can read about it, a couple of common tricks to side step the test (ad hoc hypotheses) but in principle that's it.

For example, you test the theory or relativity every time you use GPS. It usually works.

Everything else is a matter of taste. Do you like consistency? Logical structure? Elegance? Authority? Peer review? You can make up whatever test you like. There's bayesian approach, you can try to consciously correct for your biases... but it's hard to beat the scientific method.

Another slight caveat -- as well as predicting things which should work, it should also predict what won't work. If your theory is that your medicine cures an illness, it's not enough for people who take it to get better - people in the control group who don't take it must not get better.

Scientific Method, Socratic Discourses. Debate everything until you're blue in the face, examine every precept or "given truth", question every fundament.

True from false you can divine with the above, but only within the constraints of what we know and can know - this is the epistemological route.

Right from wrong is an entirely different topic, and is an ethical and moral question. A good starting point for considering the very definition of "right" and "wrong" might be to read or read about Kant, Plato, and Aristotle - but ultimately what's "right" or "wrong" derives from the very subjective societal norms of whatever cultural context you find yourself within.

There's essentially nothing which is considered universally right, or universally wrong - you get to figure this one out for yourself.

Figuring out the truths from falsehoods is an art. Sorry, but there you have it. The so-called "Scientific Method" is just mechanics and formalities of what generally convinces people about certain claims.

apu's recommended reading and viewings (Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", and Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed") are excellent starting points in your personal explorations into this.

Another worthwhile reading comes from Issac Asimov, "The Relativity of Wrong" (http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html ). I think he may have been an inspiration to the notion of science as an enterprise at being "less wrong", per this redacted snippet: John Campbell [Asimov's editor], who specialized in irritating me [...] told me that all theories are proven wrong in time. My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong. However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts...

Your curiosity is admirable. Please keep it. I wish more people would openly question things in this manner.

To answer your questions: No, you should not believe everything you are told. You should look at how credible sources are. I err with science, and for me, religion that discredits science doesn't work. I do watch a lot of conspiracy theory things... so many sources are full of absolute crap, but it is fun and I find strings or theories, but little proof or truth. I'm afraid that if I didn't use my brain, I'd wind up believing all sorts of things. Things I know are untrue. Keep your eyes open, keep the healthy questioning and skeptisicm.

My other advice is to remember that the truth can change. Science disproves itself as we discover new things. And this is fine and expected - as long as your views change with new facts, you'll be fine. My big example is always religion - If any god or gods give me unrefutable truth that they exist, I'll believe in whichever god or gods gave me proof. Otherwise, I'll trust in science, keep some distrust for the sensational small-study 'breakthroughs' and keep on my own path.

I suggest holding two realities in your mind: that it is both true and false. Try to see if the muslim fellow can also hold two possibilities. Also worth having a 4*4 matrix: true/false for me/him in any one moment. But the true/false can also be flawed: absolute truth is considered a spiritual experience.

Judaism also has a cosmology. What is truer: Islam or Judaism.. or something else... like the experience itself that it describes?

Ironically, maybe being able to hold these possibilities of truth actually takes you to that experience of absolute truth.. where complete opposites can be both completely true and completely false.

2 kinds of knowledge:

1. The kind that you can use to make testable predictions.

2. The kind that you can't use to make testable predictions.

Kind 1 is easy to verify. Just test the testable prediction. Done. That's really all science is.

Kind 2... people have different opinions on. Some people say that Kind 2 is useless and one should reject all of it. Some other people hold Kind 2 close to their heart and find rich meaning in it. With Kind 2, though, there's no good way to tell what's right.

The study of this is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Exactly. This is a problem of epistemology. There is a less fancy name for it: Theory of Knowledge.

For starters, bear these two sentences in mind whenever you find yourself asking whether something is true or false:

1. Knowledge is justified true belief. 2. "How do you know?"

Number 1 tells you upfront that knowledge is belief. But it's not just any kind of belief. It is belief that you can justify to be true. Note how we don't say "knowledge is truth" (because knowledge only holds for as long as it cannot be demonstrated to be false). There are, of course, different kinds of knowledge, which have different levels of justification. E.g. pure mathematics is a kind of knowledge with the highest level of justification because conjectures can be proven or disproven and there is no dispute (unless you make a mistake in your proof, but then peer review will catch your mistake, unless the peers have been drinking...)

Number 2 is just an easier formulation of number 1. You use this question recursively until you start to feel you are being absurd or silly. E.g. Tommy told me he saw a police shoot Michael Brown. How do I know this is true? Because Tommy is trustworthy. How do I know Tommy is trustworthy? Because Tommy is my friend and would never lie to me. How do I know Tommy would never lie to me? Because I have known him for X years and everything he has said in the past have turned out to be largely true. Etc. ad nauseum.

If you happen to know anybody doing or having done the IB diploma, you can ask them about ToK (Theory of Knowledge), because ToK is a required subject in the IB diploma. They may put on a smug smile for a few seconds and start talking. (I did IB diploma myself.) In fact you'll give them good practice to get better at ToK.

Read Julian Baginni The Ego Trick. He examines the notion that our sense of self is false. The feeling that 'I' exist is wrong. Throughout life we are constantly re-adjusting ourselves. Our worldview changes. What is right or wrong changes depending on where we are standing, and when we are standing there.

What you need to do is to read the Less Wrong sequences. (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences)

That will help with clearing some things up.

Bertrand Russell goes into this question in some depth. http://www.ditext.com/russell/russell.html

1. There are no absolute universal truths.

2. There are only at best absolute local truths i.e. truths which are truths only in a limited local subsystem of the entire possible universe. The moment you consider a larger enclosing system of which the local subsystem is only a part then the truth may cease to be.

3. One should be comfortable believing that contradicting truths can co-exist. It is the limitation of the human mind to resolve the contradictions.

Interestingly, you state #1 as an absolute universal truth. In this, I think that your position is self-contradictory.

There is a reality that exists. Statements are true or false to the degree that they conform or fail to conform to the reality that exists.

The problem is knowing to what degree a statement conforms to the truth of what exists...

I've seen nice summary of #1 in one sentence: All generalizations are wrong, including this one.

Yes, but instead of being self-contradictory, now it's special pleading.

But you do not take into consideration #3 when trying to 'appreciate' #1

Your second point is a complicated thing - while it is true that everything may be different when you go far enough away it is also true that the assumption that the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the (observable) universe is a foundational pillar of science.

The assumption that the laws of nature are the same everywhere is equivalent to saying that there are universal truths which I agree with.

Second point only highlights our limitations (due to limitations of local observational capability only) to stating those laws of nature / universal truths with enough degree of correctness so that they may really be categorised as universal truths.

nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

Basic discordian philosophy.

∞

You got a lot of "scientific" answers.

I want to give you different answer, which almost everyone will disagree with.

My answer is this - you ALWAYS know what is right or wrong, true or false. You don't need anyone to tell you this. And you certainly don't need "evidence". Evidence is for people who lack imagination. Leaders create their own evidence.

I don't believe you. People don't always know right and wrong. True and false is easier with some practice and the right mind. What is right in one situation can be very wrong in another. Most people's sense of right and wrong are taught by community - I'd give you more merit if right and wrong were indeed universal concepts.

'Creating evidence'... This makes me cringe and brings images of politicians to mind. I believe some pretty odd things sometimes (singularity movment.. 30 years, i'm waiting) but if there is no actual evidence, or if I don't see results in some way, or if it conflicts with science and things with evidence... I'm not likely to believe.

You're just bitter. Life is beautiful. And you have far more power over "reality" than you give yourself credit for. But you value your comfort and your perception of safety far more than you value your power, so you will never be powerful.

Heh. Yeah, I'm a little bitter. I don't see life as all bad, but I know there is a lot of suffering in it. Not all life is beautiful - just like most people are non-evil, but a few of them, they are.

And dude. My own comfort levels? I moved across an ocean and married a man that practices chaos magick (I wound up reading some stuff, and am starting to practice. There was no pressure). I already had Discordian philosophies. I am lucky, and privelidged enough to have a level of freedom beyond what I thought I wanted... and I wouldn't give it up. But you are right. I value my own happiness above power, I'd only take the power over being happy temporarily. Poking at things behind the scenes is just as much fun, even if there is no real power in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law