
Why? I can only think of one reason -- she is a much more secure person than I was (am?).
Induction destroys certainty and leads to probability. I wasn't allowed to be certain about religious conviction, ethical assumptions, and so on all the way down to whether the sun was going to rise on any given morning. And as an intellectually arrogant person - one who used certainty as his epistemological blankey - this kept me up.
Eventually I realized that uncertainty was certainly a more realistic ideal to live up to than certainty. (Huh?)
A friend asked recently: Why should I publish anything when my thoughts will probably change on the subject? Because growth in the face of new data is how scientific/rational thought works. Own mind-changes and mistakes, and own moving forward. I think our aversion to be called out as wrong is rooted in an unrealistic Cartesian understanding of knowledge (one the requires absolutely certainty). That does not appear to be the way the world works.
It's comforting to me that I'm always possibly wrong. It takes away the feeling that I'm always supposed to be right. Now I'm only compelled to be right a higher percentage time than you are. Which I figure is as close to a certain occurrence as we can get in this world. Idiots.
No comments:
Post a Comment