[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p6365AVsIA[/youtube]
The Pessimistic Meta-Induction from the History of Science. That’s exactly my attitude towards Science, having studied it for many years I feel comfortable with what it does and why it is limited with each theory temporary.
Perhaps what’s most interesting about the talk is that soon it’ll be deemed wrong. There are many reasons as to why it can be seen as wrong already, but clearly they are not yet popular because TED talks are about issues rising in popularity, having risen to a certain level of popularity already, but not having yet been spread into the mainstream - they are a long way from going out of fashion.
First of all, the talk is embedded in the idea of a social objectivity. By that I mean that the consensus is that there might be a truth (that one is wrong) concealed by their thinking that they are right, as mere appearance, and that in order to uncover this truth one needs to look to others: there is an objective truth and it is socially located. This is an attitude that is subject to historical change.
She even covered the idea that what is understood as “wrong” is essential to the nature of mankind, and that there can be right in it if you don’t see wrong as being bad. The whole distinction between right and wrong is blurred here.
Further, this whole critical style of mine is subject to historical change, meaning even the criticism of it as wrong could become wrong. Arguments from historical change are great for reinforcing the idea of temporal flux, though they themselves are subject to historical change and we can go round in circles. I think what’s important are the imminent stages of history relevant to you, where now it is emerging that one can be more comfortable going round in circles when before that was so obviously a sign of wrongness.
Yes, the distinction between right and wrong is somewhat blurred here, but isn’t that life? Everything is a grey area, no?
And she doesn’t tell us to look to others, she tells us to look outside our own heads. There’s a difference.
I refer your attention to 16:31-16:56.
She says we need to externalise the problem, yes, but by looking to other people - particularly people who disagree with us.
But that is not the only thing she says. Part of looking outside of our own heads (a big part, admittedly) is looking to other people, and anyway one can learn a lot by listening to ideas that differ from their own. Discussion and argument, these things are valuable. Further, humans define “right” and “wrong”, so how is one to gauge whether they are right or wrong unless they look to others?
Absolutely. And amongst different humans, right and wrong could be utterly different. Different people at different points in history also, this changes just like ideas about right and wrong in the realm of science.
I’m enjoying how we’re agreeing and disagreeing about who’s right and who’s wrong on a thread about being wrong. I don’t really see either as being right or wrong, but yet I still hold an idea of what I am treating as right and wrong - and I go along with that. Black and white could be valued just as shades of grey.
I think the main oversight of the video (intentionally, of course) is the value in thinking oneself to be right. There are a great many advantages to feeling oneself to be right, and to single-mindedly pursuing a single right and avoiding a single wrong. What if one wants conflict, for example? Conflict can be healthy and even result in a wider benefit for many. What if people prefer disagreement, and thus disagreement avoids conflict?
Whether or not to go along with right and wrong is itself something treated as a judgment of right and wrong.
Sil, the reason she doesn’t address the value of thinking yourself to be right is because the speech is about being wrong. I know you realize it was intentional, but…well that’s the whole point!
And I agree with you about the value of being right, but everyone knows that being right is valuable. People are so afraid of being wrong that they will make HUGE mistakes just to avoid saying, “I was wrong about this…”. It’s an important topic, the value of being wrong, and it needs to be discussed more than the other because of the social stigma. I totally understand you wanting to focus on the “value of thinking oneself right”, but the desire to avoid the topic at hand (which is how being admittedly wrong can be beneficial) just proves even more that it is so.
very good topic…
why are people so sure they are right…
they really dont want to say i am wrong…
they really dont want to ask certain questions…
Yeah, the thing is I’m one of those assholes to which she is directly referring. I love being right regardless of the recognition of the rightness in wrongness, the historical lack of consistency in rightness and wrongness, and the blurred nature of right and wrong. Being right is the direct expression of my vigour, my passion, my command. It feels superb being able to express this and it feels wrong to admit I am ever wrong, so much so that I never actually believe myself to be wrong. I have the arguments of historical lack of consistency in rightness and wrongness, and the blurred nature of right and wrong to back me up. Her arguments actually work just as well in reverse. I know what I feel compelled to express is what I feel compelled to express. Admitting this is a kind of admission of wrongess, but it feels right because I know I’m right. I don’t filter my will through reason, reason is just something I enjoy translating my will into in order to achieve the expression of my will. I don’t filter my will through principled ends such as peace and getting on either.
Listening to her requires the denial of all of this for the sake of getting on, and for the sake of peace. What’s so great about that? I’m not saying we should do away with peace and getting on, but there’s a great deal of life and rightness in conflict and frustration, even if it’s just in the self expression that is so prone to causing this. It is merely historically relevant for this topic and her stance to come to the forefront as “what we ought to do”. Being one of the assholes that I describe myself as, naturally I believe I am beyond the next stage of mainstream progression and nearing the end of the next stage even after that one. This, in today’s terms, is known as being arrogant, big-headed, egoistic, all sorts of terms that are insulting today and complimentary tomorrow.
I should bow out of this one really, I don’t have anything to contribute.
I had a girlfriend I broke up with because of that.
Women are never wrong, so her refusal to talk about things in which she could be wrong, was right for her.
Refusing to even discuss a top in which one could be wrong seems a bit extreme to me. As does the general nature of your statement – “Women are never wrong…”
The never wrong part was tongue in cheek/a joke.
And yes, it was extreme to not allow herself to discuss things. She is American.
More generalizations.
One would think that a person who believes themselves to be so superior to anyone who disagrees with them would refrain from generalizing an entire sex, or an entire nation of people, to avoid appearing ignorant to the extreme, but I guess things just don’t work out that way.
I see you have nothing to offer here, or at least nothing you’re willing to share. Go away, please.
Yeah cause your contributions have been so groundbreaking and specific.
Did you come into this thread just to attack me, Matt?
I’ve never claimed to have a “groundbreaking” thought. Ever. Not once in my life. Dig? I feel no need to go out and prove to everyone how “special” I am. That you do is your problem. Further, your statement implies that you believe you have contributed groundbreaking ideas to…what? This site? The world? Somehow, I really fucking doubt it.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure you just came into this thread to talk some shit to me. Seriously, you fucking heeb, get a life.
(Go 'head and warn me Mags.)
I didn’t even address you initially. So, no…
You should try it.
It doesn’t imply that.
I’m pretty sure there is no evidence for that.
Your first post in this thread you quoted me directly. Yeah, you came here to talk shit. You know you and I will not have a pleasant conversation. Not that we can’t, but we won’t. So leave it alone.
You trying to kill this thread? Afraid to be wrong?
The thread is dead, you fucking moron. Thanks for that. You’re awesome.
What’re you, five? Seriously. Let it go, man.
This passage seems to be becoming a little popular to quote elsewhere in the forum, and apparently its implications have gone over certain people’s heads.
Whilst I genuinely believe what I said in the above quote, the irony of it was supposed to be grasped by any with negative reactions towards it when questioning why they have a negative reaction towards it, in light of the opening TED talk…
Clearly, to have a negative reaction towards one who always thinks they are right is to admit a great deal of trouble with not emerging as right.
To have a negative reaction towards my post is to admit you are the same.
The post was intended to have an absurd impact in light of the opening video. Nobody admits to being the way my post admits to being, and yet - as in the video - such an attitude is so very common. And those who think they have been clever in quoting me as though it incriminates me have only been incriminating themselves, only proving the TED talk right…