Tip # 57 Risk Being Wrong
Apr. 3rd, 2016 06:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastBack in Tip 19*, I advised you to get used to the notion that you are, right now, wrong about many things.
In case you haven't checked it out, go look at the Crash Course Youtube Channel. One of the currently updating courses is Crash Course Philosophy. The most recent lesson was on the difference between Science and Pseudoscience**. The short of it is that science risks being wrong and pseudoscience avoids taking that risk.
This past Wednesday, I posted my answers to a list of ten questions that the website TodayChristian.net claims that I cannot "honestly and truly REALLY answer". Especially notable on that particular page is that it does not have a comments section, despite the fact that other pages do. I used the "Contact Us" link to email them my answers and they may or may not get that email, then may or may not read. Assuming they do have the access and the interest to read my answers, they can easily declare said answers not to be honestly answered, truly answered, or REALLY answered.
I also attribute the base concept of Presuppositional Apologetics to an aversion to risking being wrong. It declares itself the winner and, when debated, the chief proponents of which I am aware will often devolve into repeating "how do you know" over whatever anybody else is saying.
I cannot fully emphasize how needed this tip is without looking to Creationism. One argument gets repeated in conversation, in debate, in lecture, in book, and on webistes. This argument says that all the evidence supporting a universe older than ten thousand years is faulty on the basis that there were no eyewitnesses to verify that, before a certain point, the laws of physics were not so incredibly different as to make evidence, as a conept, invalid.
Often times, I find efforts to avoid putting one's ideas to any kind of risk to not be about converting the nonbeliever. This is a part of why you should, as per Tip #25***, Place Not Your Faith in Professional Apologists. These kinds of efforts are far more about signaling that one is a believer in order to gain the rewards from other believers.
Aside from that image, there's another element to this mistake.
Imagine that you're in a group of travelers. You all agree to an ideal destination, but disagree on the path and directions to that destination. One of the travelers believes, wholeheartedly, that the way to the destination is North. Your group comes to a signpost. This believer looks down and walks up to the signpost. Without looking up to the sign, the believer declares that the sign declares the destination to be North.
But, the sign doesn't point North or discuss the destination at all. That's hardly surprising given the lack of a sign on the post.
The believer continues to avoid looking at the sign.
It may even be the case that North is the way to go. But, so long as this believer refuses to look at the sign, that believer is not going to realize how poor a case the sign-based argument makes.
For any claim you might employ in argument, in conversation, maybe even in life, you have a question to ask. "If this is wrong, how will I find out?"
Be careful, the answer that you wouldn't find out can mask itself. It can refuse to interact with the concept. "I'm just not wrong." It can be deliberately vague. "Oh, I'd know." Often times, the answer will hide behind a doubling down on the confidence, claiming certainty as a means of avoiding even the idea of doubt.
Without that question and a practical answer, you are studiously avoiding that sign, when you should be looking for another.
* http://wingedbeast.dreamwidth.org/24588.html
** https://youtu.be/-X8Xfl0JdTQ
*** http://wingedbeast.dreamwidth.org/29629.html
In case you haven't checked it out, go look at the Crash Course Youtube Channel. One of the currently updating courses is Crash Course Philosophy. The most recent lesson was on the difference between Science and Pseudoscience**. The short of it is that science risks being wrong and pseudoscience avoids taking that risk.
This past Wednesday, I posted my answers to a list of ten questions that the website TodayChristian.net claims that I cannot "honestly and truly REALLY answer". Especially notable on that particular page is that it does not have a comments section, despite the fact that other pages do. I used the "Contact Us" link to email them my answers and they may or may not get that email, then may or may not read. Assuming they do have the access and the interest to read my answers, they can easily declare said answers not to be honestly answered, truly answered, or REALLY answered.
I also attribute the base concept of Presuppositional Apologetics to an aversion to risking being wrong. It declares itself the winner and, when debated, the chief proponents of which I am aware will often devolve into repeating "how do you know" over whatever anybody else is saying.
I cannot fully emphasize how needed this tip is without looking to Creationism. One argument gets repeated in conversation, in debate, in lecture, in book, and on webistes. This argument says that all the evidence supporting a universe older than ten thousand years is faulty on the basis that there were no eyewitnesses to verify that, before a certain point, the laws of physics were not so incredibly different as to make evidence, as a conept, invalid.
Often times, I find efforts to avoid putting one's ideas to any kind of risk to not be about converting the nonbeliever. This is a part of why you should, as per Tip #25***, Place Not Your Faith in Professional Apologists. These kinds of efforts are far more about signaling that one is a believer in order to gain the rewards from other believers.
Aside from that image, there's another element to this mistake.
Imagine that you're in a group of travelers. You all agree to an ideal destination, but disagree on the path and directions to that destination. One of the travelers believes, wholeheartedly, that the way to the destination is North. Your group comes to a signpost. This believer looks down and walks up to the signpost. Without looking up to the sign, the believer declares that the sign declares the destination to be North.
But, the sign doesn't point North or discuss the destination at all. That's hardly surprising given the lack of a sign on the post.
The believer continues to avoid looking at the sign.
It may even be the case that North is the way to go. But, so long as this believer refuses to look at the sign, that believer is not going to realize how poor a case the sign-based argument makes.
For any claim you might employ in argument, in conversation, maybe even in life, you have a question to ask. "If this is wrong, how will I find out?"
Be careful, the answer that you wouldn't find out can mask itself. It can refuse to interact with the concept. "I'm just not wrong." It can be deliberately vague. "Oh, I'd know." Often times, the answer will hide behind a doubling down on the confidence, claiming certainty as a means of avoiding even the idea of doubt.
Without that question and a practical answer, you are studiously avoiding that sign, when you should be looking for another.
* http://wingedbeast.dreamwidth.org/24588.html
** https://youtu.be/-X8Xfl0JdTQ
*** http://wingedbeast.dreamwidth.org/29629.html
