Q. When faced with the epidemic of ignorance that is modern society, how can one determine which ideas are good and which ones are bad?
A. The same way as you would differentiate between an ideologue and a rationalist.
An ideologue will try to prove to you that their ideas are right. Unfortunately, this is an ineffective approach, as personal and ideological biases ensure that it’s no harder to prove a bad idea is good as it is to prove a good one is.
People instinctively apply less scrutiny to evidence in favour of ideas they're in agreement with.
A rationalist, on the other hand, will first try to prove to themselves that their ideas are wrong, and if they fail to do so, they invite others to try. Proving that a bad idea is wrong is also easy, but proving a good idea wrong is much much harder. This is therefore the more effective approach.
It’s also a cornerstone of the scientific method.
So next time you’re approached with an idea, try to identify whether or not the idea has already been vetted. If something seems obviously wrong with it, ask the question, and it will soon become clear if there’s any rational thought gone into it.
Q. How would one deal with established "truths" that may never be questioned by pain of legal sanction?
A. If you are not permitted to attempt to disprove an established "truth", then regardless of its veracity, that "truth" becomes immediately invalid—nothing more than a baseless assertion that can be disregarded without the need for evidence or counter-argument. When a contrary position cannot be pursued, then the veracity of the assertion can no longer be proven, and as that's where the burden of proof lies, the default assumption must therefore be that the established "truth" is false.
Q. So you're saying the Holocaust wasn't real?
A. Absolutely not. Such talk is a criminal offence in some countries.
But that's kind of the point. Because it cannot be said, it therefore doesn't need to be said.
When somebody brings up the Holocaust, you can simply laugh at them and say, "Whatever you say, Levi!"
So next time you’re approached with an idea, try to identify whether or not the idea has already been vetted. If something seems obviously wrong with it, ask the question, and it will soon become clear if there’s any rational thought gone into it.
Q. How would one deal with established "truths" that may never be questioned by pain of legal sanction?
A. If you are not permitted to attempt to disprove an established "truth", then regardless of its veracity, that "truth" becomes immediately invalid—nothing more than a baseless assertion that can be disregarded without the need for evidence or counter-argument. When a contrary position cannot be pursued, then the veracity of the assertion can no longer be proven, and as that's where the burden of proof lies, the default assumption must therefore be that the established "truth" is false.
Q. So you're saying the Holocaust wasn't real?
A. Absolutely not. Such talk is a criminal offence in some countries.
But that's kind of the point. Because it cannot be said, it therefore doesn't need to be said.
When somebody brings up the Holocaust, you can simply laugh at them and say, "Whatever you say, Levi!"
No comments:
Post a Comment