“If
you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least
once in
your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.”
–Rene Descartes
How do we know if
you are right? Well, there are a few simple things we can do to help you get an
approximate idea, which I will discuss. Of course, this will be a very simple
overview with some basic tricks—I have no intention of getting into some
philosophical debate about the nature of knowledge or anything like that. I do
also want to acknowledge that not everything is necessarily right or wrong. In
some cases, we might not have a clear enough understanding to determine the
accuracy of a claim. For example, what is the cause of schizophrenia? There are
a variety of potential causes, and to say the cause is genetic is neither right
nor wrong—there appears to be a genetic component, as well as others.
Regardless of that, the following tips should put us on the right track with
most things, most of the time.
----
The first thing you should do is find out what
the experts think. If you aren’t sure, search Wikipedia1 and check
for a criticism or controversy section. For example, the article on evolution doesn’t have any such section. It does have a
cultural response section, highlighting the religious objection to it, but there
isn’t anything about scientists opposing it. From that, we can conclude that
there isn’t a scientific objection to evolution.
When we look up the Wikipedia article regarding mirror neurons, unlike evolution, there is a section covering scientist’s doubts over some of the grandiose claims regarding them. From that, we can conclude that there certainly is some strong scientific criticism towards mirror neurons, or at the least, there is certainly no consensus one way or the other regarding them.
When we look up the Wikipedia article regarding mirror neurons, unlike evolution, there is a section covering scientist’s doubts over some of the grandiose claims regarding them. From that, we can conclude that there certainly is some strong scientific criticism towards mirror neurons, or at the least, there is certainly no consensus one way or the other regarding them.
Finally, if we look up the New Age documentary
“What the Bleep Do We Know?”, we find that the scientific criticism
section is nearly as long as the rest of the entire article! After reading it,
we can be fairly confident that What the Bleep Do We Know has no scientific
credibility whatsoever.
Once you get an idea of what the general
consensus on a topic is (assuming there is one), ask yourself if your views
line up with that consensus. If they don’t, you’re probably wrong. Of course,
if you are an expert in that field, perhaps your disagreement will have some
merit, but generally, the fact that you are in disagreement with the experts is
an indication that you just don’t know enough about the topic, and have come to
a mistaken conclusion.2
If you find that the experts disagree with
you, and you are still certain that you are correct, come up with the best
argument for your position, and email an expert. See if the best argument you
can put forward can stand up to scrutiny from someone who has spent decades
studying the topic.
Of course, there is the issue of trying to decide
if someone is an actual expert or not. My general test is that they have to
have a PhD in a field relevant to the topic, have published academic
books and papers, and presented at conferences. A quick look at their bio, CV,
resume, etc will let you know all of that info.3
----
Sigmund Freud claimed that young children are
sexually attracted to their parent of the opposite sex, and as they grow up,
they repress these feelings and thoughts. So if Freud asked “were you sexually
attracted to your mom/dad as a child?” you could either answer “yes”, which
proves Freud's idea right, or you could answer “no”, demonstrating that you
have indeed repressed those memories and feelings, and Freud is still right.
Heads Freud wins, tails you lose.
This brings us to the concept of
falsifiablity. In the case of Freud's Oedipus Complex, such a claim wasn't
falsifiable. This means that no matter the outcome of investigating his claim,
there was no way his claim could be shown to be false. That is to say, the
Oedipus Complex is non-falsifiable.4
At first, it’s tempting to think that holding
a position in which nothing can show it to be wrong is a strength. "If I
am right about something, regardless of the outcome of any observation, go
me!" Though, one quick reminder of the Oedipus Complex demonstrates why
non falsifiable ideas don't help anyone in terms of getting to the truth. And
how would you view someone with the opposing view point if they told you
nothing would ever change their mind? That any result of any observation, no
matter what, would only further demonstrate their position? I can't imagine
you'd take such a person seriously.
Falsifiablity is an extremely important
concept, and means that for every theory, fact, hypothesis, statement, claim,
etc that you make about the world, it also must be able to be potentially
false. To be clear, that doesn’t mean it IS false, just that it could be. More
simply put, the idea has to be testable. For example, I might say “cinder
blocks sink in water.” This is a falsifiable statement, because we can take
some cinder blocks, put them in water, and see if they sink. If the cinder
blocks float, we will have falsified my claim that cinder blocks sink.
Another way to think about falsifiability is
this: falsifiable ideas make predictions (“if X is true, then we should see Y.
If we don’t see Y, then X is wrong”), while non-falsifiable ideas make excuses
(“if X is true, then we should see Y. If we don’t see Y, then X is still true
for Z reasons).5 Let's look at a couple of examples:
Years
ago, I was a reoccurring guest on a Christian radio show, and one time we were talking about prayer as
evidence of God. The host, who knew I didn’t have a sense of smell, had an
idea. He suggested that everyone listening to the show pray for my sense of
smell to be returned. He then asked me if I woke up the next day and was able
to smell, would I count that as evidence of God? I said yes, absolutely. But
then I continued, if tomorrow comes, and I still can’t smell, the host has to
count that as evidence against the existence of God. He immediately
objected, stating that that’s not how God or prayer works. How convenient! If I
get my smell back, it’s evidence of God, but if I don’t, it’s evidence that God
chose not to answer the prayers. Heads the host wins, tails I lose.
I recently heard
of an amusing discussion regarding safety on campus. One person stated that
many students don’t feel safe on campus. Another person rebutted, pointing out
that a recent, anonymous survey showed that in fact, the vast majority of
students feel quite safe on campus. The first person responded that the people
who didn’t feel safe probably didn’t state such a thing on the survey. Ah, of
course! To the first person, any evidence that contradicts their position is
flawed and wrong. The first person wasn't making predictions (such as "if
we polled the student body, we would find that many students don't feel
safe")—they were making excuses. Or to modify the Henry Morris quote from
above, "when the data and my opinions differ, the data is clearly
wrong."
Once you have
confirmed that your idea is falsifiable, you then need to try and falsify it!
Take a claim that you would like to convince people of, and write out a list of
things that if true, would change your mind regarding it. For example, if
cinder blocks float, then my claim that they sink is wrong, and I would change
my mind. If your view on a position you hold is that "nothing
would change my mind!”, please refer back to the third paragraph of this
section.
Anyway, once you
have your list of things that would change your mind, investigate those claims,
and see if any of them are true. If any are, then your claim is falsified, and
you should change your mind. However, don’t be afraid of being wrong! If you
find that you are mistaken, just change your mind, and then you are right
again. Yay! On the other hand, if you do find that the cinder blocks don’t
float, then you can be fairly confident that your claim is true.
----
Next up is my
favorite concept in all of psychology: The Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE). The DKE
is twofold. Part one states that the less someone knows about a topic, the more
certain they are regarding that topic. So when people claim to be absolutely
certain about something, it’s not because they know a bunch about the
subject—usually just the opposite, they only know a small amount. College
students are extremely prone to this, as they take a class or two on something,
and then view themselves as experts.6 With the internet, people will
watch a youtube video, or read a blog post, and walk away viewing themselves as
having a strong understanding of the issue. This is why creationists who have
never opened a biology book in their life are convinced that evolution is an
atheist myth, why climate change deniers that have never heard anything on the
topic outside of talk radio are sure it’s a liberal conspiracy, why people with
gender study degrees can assure us that biological sex is a social construct, and why anti-GMO people (who don’t even know what DNA is) are certain that
genetically modified food is dangerous. The DKE creates an unfortunate
disconnect between competence and confidence that can be very difficult to
correct for.
Part two of the
DKE states that the more we actually do know about a topic, the more we understand
the complexity and nuance of it. As a result of this deeper understanding, we
are less likely to be extreme in our opinion regarding it. It's harder to view
the world as black or white if we understand that it is often different shades
of grey.
There is a
striking difference when comparing the language used by a novice and an expert.
The novice tends to use language of certainty, such as “THIS is the way it is!
It's a settled issue, and everyone who disagrees is either an idiot or shill.
Maybe both!” Meanwhile, the expert, knowing the intricacies of the issue, tends
to use much more reserved language, such as “we have reason to believe… our
best evidence suggests… currently we think that" etc. Unfortunately, this can
then lead other novices to side with the person who knows very little, but
appears very confident.
Overall, there is
a very strong negative correlation between our knowledge of a topic and our
confidence in our knowledge of the topic. We should always reflect on things
that we feel extremely certain about, and consider the possibility that we hold
such strong views, not because we are experts, but because we actually know
very little.
----
In conclusion, in
order to convince people we are right, we first need to make sure we actually
ARE right! This is not only the responsible and honest thing to do, but it’s MUCH
easier to convince someone we are right when we have reality on our side. To
try and help make sure we are on the right side of reality, there are four easy
things we can do:- Try and find criticism sections on relevant Wikipedia articles.
- Find experts in the relevant field and see if they agree with you.
- Come up with a list of things that would make you change your mind regarding your position.
- Realize that extreme confidence is generally a sign of a lack of expertise regarding a topic.
In the next post,
I will cover how to make sure your argument will hold up to some basic logical
principles, as well as cover a few other random concepts that will help us on
our quest to convince people that we are right, and they are wrong.
----
1. For people
skeptical of the reliability of Wikipedia, check out this previous post.
2. For a more thorough
discussion, check out this previous post.
3. It’s amazing
how frequently academics feel like they have something relevant to say that is
outside their area of expertise. It’s especially embarrassing when they are in
contention with the actual experts. Here we have Jerry Coyne (a biologist) arguing
that historical Jesus never existed. Here we have Ben Carson (a neurosurgeon) claiming
that the pyramids were built by the Biblical character, Joseph, for storing
grain. Here we have Michio Kaku (a theoretical physicist)
saying all sorts of nonsense about the Yellowstone caldera. Smart people
letting their brains go to their head… there are endless examples.
4. The
theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli used to use the phrase “not even wrong” to
describe ideas that weren’t falsifiable. He considered non-falsifiable ideas to
be so bad, that calling them wrong wasn’t enough. Years later, the
theoretical physicist, Peter Woit, wrote a book criticizing String Theory,
titling it “Not Even Wrong.”
5. Two great
parables that eloquently explain the problem with non-falsifiable claims: Theology and Falsifiability by the philosopher Antony Flew, and The Dragon in my Garage,
by the astronomer Carl Sagan.
6. One of the
most interesting classes I took in college was on the psychology of language.
The class was taught by Roger Fouts, who was one of the main people behind
Project Washoe, which taught chimps to use sign language. After taking one
class, and reading only on book (written by Fouts, which is phenomenal and I highly recommend it),
I was 100% convinced that chimps had the capacity for language, despite the
fact that such a claim is HIGHLY controversial (at best). Several years later, I had
the opportunity to meet Steven Pinker,
and asked him what he thought about the issue. He said what basically all
cognitive scientists say, which is that no, chimps don’t have the capacity for
language. A couple years later, I asked a professor of psycholinguistics about
it, and she also confirmed what Pinker stated. It was then that I realized I
should probably reassess my views, and read a bit more on the topic. Shortly
after, I discovered I was wrong. Yes, while chimps can use some basic signs to
communicate in a simple fashion (sort of a proto-language), they aren’t capable
of what we describe as language.
7. As these
quotes attest, the general idea of the DKE isn’t new. Though it is nice to have
a name for it, as well as experimental evidence to back it up!
No comments:
Post a Comment