Uncertainty isn't a free pass

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, last night - amidst a discussion of how screwed the earth would be if the moon started hurling towards it - I commented on how a planet crashing into earth led to the moon (as some of the debris gathered in space to form the moon). Well, this person, some sort of wishy-washy, "everyone has an equal access to the truth", spiritualist from what I gather said, rather sternly "How do They Know That?!" Then followed with some rather disconnected assertion about how "NOBODY CAN PROVE THAT AND NOBODY CAN PROVE THAT THE UNIVERSE WASN'T CREATED!"

My main thoughts? WTF??! !!

Where the hell do people get this perverted idea that because there's some uncertainty or doubt regarding some issue that automatically means anything goes? I mean, I'm sure it's impossible to prove absolutely that O. J. Simpson killed Nicole, but if because of this lingering possibility of error, the defence attorney argued that Aliens, in fact, conducted the murder and framed O. J., they'd be laughed off the stage (yes, it’s possible to have an even more ridiculous defence then the one the actually got away with).

This particularly unreflective, anti-Impact Hypothesis person almost certainly uses inductive and abductive inferential reasoning in day to day life. If a co-worker told her that he'd walked on the moon half an hour ago and ate its (supposed) cheese exterior, this person wouldn't buy the explanation at all. Even if you can't absolutely disprove that scenario!

So why do so many people infatuated with the prospect of some uncertainty or gap in knowledge go to such moronic lengths as treating it as a free pass? Since nobody knows exactly what happens, anything suddenly goes? Where do unreflective, intellectually lazy, or flat out wilful ignoramuses get such nonsense from?!

Why? Because there's no reason not to. In low stakes situations, such as this conversation, there isn't really any fallout in any direction, no matter what your belief is. Like you noted, this person probably is quite careful to do this only in certain situations and would certainly not do it where the stakes are higher, such as believing that a coworker went to the moon on lunch break. Actually believing that would have various bad consequences.

But in a casual conversation about unresolvable subjects, doing this is really just a form of "blue sky-ing"- throwing out interesting "what if" ideas just for fun. What I mean is...yes, there's a free pass. When discussing things where the outcome of your conversation won't have any impact on real life decisions, there's no reason to stick to strict logic. Throwing logic aside is more fun and interesting. Fun, interesting and illogical is no way to run a company, but it can be a good way to have an animated discussion. Plus it's probably fun for others to get you apoplectic- so there's that payoff.

Because people are stupid, and people are bad at reasoning.

The simplest solution might be to take his wallet, tell him nobody can prove he exists, and walk out or kick him out, depending on where you are.

That is not terribly polite, but there is that in your tone that suggests he was not either.

Of course it is true that thousands of hypotheses and assumptions that were perfectly sound a minute ago are being disproven or drastically modified even as we speak - at least I hope so.

Which if addressed in a reasonable manner you know as well as anybody.

Haec mala sunt cuts both ways. There ARE things I know [in a provisional but strong sense] that you do not, and things you know, I do not doubt, that I do not - at the very least you probably have read the Commonwealth. But the origins of the moon are known at that level to no human, and it is not the act of a scientist or a gentleman [the two are of course not mutually exclusive] to posture as if A's ignorance trumps B's.

People also grossly-confuse "empirical evidence" with "what I done seen happenin' wit my own eye".

It does not actually have to be about religion or politics. I have known very similar unreason [should we in English apply the term "reason" to such propositions as "I will not tell you why I am evicvting you because you will just lie about it"? I am thinking not] - unreason being close here to the German Unsinn - brought out in everyday interpersonal relationships.

I would go along with Orwell on "people are bad at reasoning". It is not natural for most of us, it is counterproductive in many situations.

I would disagree on "people are stupid". Not that I have not, informally, said much the same - usually in the form "people are idiots". But the measure of stupidity until we have a different benchmark because the Xhpilng have landed has to be the midpoint of the race. I have known people WELL above that midpoint who - well, my prime example is the colleague highly intelligent and on good days likable, who rejected my suggestion that he might improve his interpresonal skills on the grounds that I talked to students and was therefore unprofessional.

Yes, that was dumb. But one cannot technically call a multiply peer-reviewed full professor churning out serious work "stupid". Can one?

It's because belief is largely a pragmatic function of the human brain. There are many cases where accurate beliefs are advantageous in evolutionary terms. However there are other situations where unrealistic thinking may be advantageous.

Don't fight with pigs, you will both end dirty , but the pig will enjoy it.