@Svalir Exactly how I feel. I like being corrected and I don't know why people are usually so sensitive about being corrected. I love when people corrected me when I was learning to speak Spanish because it helped me to learn. Nothing wrong with that. Knowledge is power. Live long and prosper!
such a great talk! a bit too long and stretched but moving from the middle I felt tingling in my stomach throughout the remaining video. so buying her book
"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it" (quote - Andre Gide) was the first thing that popped into my head after watching this video. Different philosophers through time have put a questionmark at perception of the human mind. Though I don't think this is relevant in that sense that all of us are subjective individuals with different interpretation of how we perceive reality. We possess a choice of mentality to wherther we want to perceive life the way we want to or not
Every once in a while it helps to get things wrong and be corrected. Just as it sometimes helps personal development to fail at something or to have to seek out other options when one metaphorical door closes.
I think the essence of what she is talking about here is assumption-formation. We make assumptions because we need to move on, and often we are wrong because we never had the time to test them. Even when we think we are right, we can discover that our accurate thinking was based on deeper assumptions that might have been wrong. It boils down to operating on probabilities and a lack of time. But yes - we should respect this, and that we can always be wrong just because we have limited time.
@demalnun: You missed her point. She was saying that we do ourselves a disservice when we think of scientists and artists as opposite - Scientists on one hand as arrogantly professing the truth, and artists on the other hand as having given up on the notion of truth (aka postmodern art). She expanded that idea by talking about how scientists are actually quite humble and aware of how much remains unknown. I suspect with more time she might have had a similar comment about artists.
1. Very thoughtful and thought-provoking. . I like that Kathryn Schulz shows the theory behind the value of our mistakes or mistaken beliefs. But after reading Intellisecular's comments of a day ago, I also think that there is a great value in *pursuing* what might be "right" (especially in the sciences). Then I bounce back and see the destruction that pursuit of the "right" has brought us (in religions). cont'd
@Svalir This is what drive me nuts when you have people that are so bent on being right but never leaving the possibility of "what if?" Stress will break a person if they are constantly being told NO ERRORS.
@drizztmay I agree Her body language is simply showing her motivation .. which is basically her emotional motive to justify 'being wrong' and assume that it is somehow wrong to be criticized publicly about it. With so many books out there the last thing wee need is a 'wrong' book. So we need sharp critiques to be able to avoid them simply in order to not waste our time with any known wrongs.
2. (cont'd) The difference, as I see it, is that different scientists' pursuits eventually converge to some degree of agreement, but different religions do not necessarily converge at all. . But I could be wrong! :-)
Being wrong is not great. The ability to understand (once ine a while) that you are wrong is. I have a "black box" theory. When you learn, you discover black boxes. They are inputs and outputs to other black boxes. Let call it The Arrangement (of your mindset). If somebody shows you (or you discover it by youself) that there is more diversity etc etc... everything collapses - paradigm shift happens. If u know that you are wrong you also know that you are smart and getting smarter and smarter.
At 16:42, she asserts that it's unenlightened to champion a certain philosophy and encourage others to follow it...yet she wrote a book about her philosophy of us embracing when we're wrong, and this lecture is her championing her philosophy in order to promote her book. #hypocrisy
This is interesting. Neurotic repression makes us "wrong", which is something we all suffer from. We internalise our childhoods and then see the world through them, like psycho-emotional sunglasses that we can never take off. It's the same thing. I explain this explicitly if you want to google: "understanding mental sickness" and "building utopia".
@Zandoraful The speaker's examination of "Being Wrong" is too generalized to be useful. "Being Wrong" in front of your mom or teacher is very different from "Being Wrong" in front of your subordinates or bosses, especially when you got a group of troops to lead in a company, or when you got a bunch of mouths to feed back at home. Capitch?
@jdfodio I disagree. There's just no question about the fact that sometimes people have false beliefs and she's not a hypocrite for believing that. Sure, I can see the point that you're trying to make but I think it's far fetched and a bit paradoxical. It's no good reason to dismiss the wisdom she's trying to spread.
@judoyodan so after watching this video, at how we can be wrong, you think there is no possible way, at all, that we could have been engineered. It is just impossible, the only possible option is that we did evolution through a massively random chance? You might want to watch this video again.
...not relevant in that sense that some philosophers like Descartes, think that the only thing that can be certain, is our existence through reson: "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefor I am)
When the subject matter is this dry, you need a very good speaker to keep it interesting. She needs to either find better material, or become a better speaker. Reminds me of my attempts at public speaking -- people like us are better at writing.
How is this the highest rated video of RSA's? First of all the talk says very little of substance. All she really said was that when we are wrong we think we are right and by then it's too late. I don't think she was pompous as much as nervous though, i'm not giving her shit for that but, a lot of the things she said were hard for me to understand. Most notably the statement that "Most science experiments fail." I don't understand how any experiment can fail. 2 pence
@demalnun "artists have given up on truth" - that is simply unspecified arbitrary statement which can not be proven and thus has no value. The term 'truth' is used as an umbrella and it's not defined at all ... so statement also has no meaning whatsoever.
It would be awesome if christians and muslims would watch this and somehow realise that they are wrong about there being an invisible sky daddy. The world would take a gigantic step forward.
You could not over-simplify the issue by talking about it out of context. Say, when your immediate means of subsistence (as Karl Marx put it) is controlled by your boss, you "have to be" politically correct, despite it might be wrong if you are in another context (such as making confession to your church's preist). Any abstraction of the topic out of context may run into the fallacy of "over-generalization", which renders the conclusions impractical and meaningless.
@bluefootedpig, lol...you're joking, right? "Evidence for intilligent design?" You are wrong about that, my friend. there is NO evidence. An argument from ignorance is not evidence. You are also taking Dawkins WAYYYY out of context. I saw the entire interview, and Dawkins' response. He agrees with me, I'm affraid.
@IdeaSponge, at some point, you have to call a "duck", a duck. There is as much evidence for the Abrahamic god as there is for Thor, Odin, Krishna and Zeus. But yet these Christians think that they are correct in their belief, not seeing the obvious, that they are just part of the "delusion de jour." As an open minded person, I am willing to consider alot of things. Superstitions, like Christianity, are not amoungst them. Nor should they be for any reasonable person.
@IdeaSponge, sorry if I flasely accused you of being religious. It's just that when someone is as clueless as you obviously are, it is usually because of participation in a dogmatic delusion like Christianity or Islam. You might want to educate yourself on matters of science. Your statement about scientific "theory" demonstrates a lack of understanding of the word and the concept. (A little help in the grammar and spelling department might not be a bad idea, either.) Good luck.
@judoyodan Wait a second... i need a little humility to admit that "I don't know" yet you refuse to admit that you could be wrong or maybe you don't know? And lack of evidence isn't evidence that it isn't possible. Before every great discovery, there was no evidence. There might have been theories, but if we went with your thinking, the world would still be flat as there is no "evidence" for it. And I never said anything about God, I only said that perhaps we were engineered, maybe dna was made.
@Svalir Exactly how I feel. I like being corrected and I don't know why people are usually so sensitive about being corrected. I love when people corrected me when I was learning to speak Spanish because it helped me to learn. Nothing wrong with that. Knowledge is power. Live long and prosper!
I lover her inspiring speech, these ideas should be useful to me in the future
such a great talk! a bit too long and stretched but moving from the middle I felt tingling in my stomach throughout the remaining video. so buying her book
It's because the system we live in now too often associates being wrong with failure, rather than a mistake which promotes learning.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it" (quote - Andre Gide) was the first thing that popped into my head after watching this video. Different philosophers through time have put a questionmark at perception of the human mind. Though I don't think this is relevant in that sense that all of us are subjective individuals with different interpretation of how we perceive reality. We possess a choice of mentality to wherther we want to perceive life the way we want to or not
Very good talk, and a good suject for everyone to ponder.
Every once in a while it helps to get things wrong and be corrected. Just as it sometimes helps personal development to fail at something or to have to seek out other options when one metaphorical door closes.
I think the essence of what she is talking about here is assumption-formation. We make assumptions because we need to move on, and often we are wrong because we never had the time to test them. Even when we think we are right, we can discover that our accurate thinking was based on deeper assumptions that might have been wrong. It boils down to operating on probabilities and a lack of time. But yes - we should respect this, and that we can always be wrong just because we have limited time.
@demalnun: You missed her point. She was saying that we do ourselves a disservice when we think of scientists and artists as opposite - Scientists on one hand as arrogantly professing the truth, and artists on the other hand as having given up on the notion of truth (aka postmodern art). She expanded that idea by talking about how scientists are actually quite humble and aware of how much remains unknown. I suspect with more time she might have had a similar comment about artists.
1. Very thoughtful and thought-provoking.
.
I like that Kathryn Schulz shows the theory behind the value of our mistakes or mistaken beliefs. But after reading Intellisecular's comments of a day ago, I also think that there is a great value in *pursuing* what might be "right" (especially in the sciences). Then I bounce back and see the destruction that pursuit of the "right" has brought us (in religions).
cont'd
@Svalir This is what drive me nuts when you have people that are so bent on being right but never leaving the possibility of "what if?" Stress will break a person if they are constantly being told NO ERRORS.
@drizztmay I agree
Her body language is simply showing her motivation .. which is basically her emotional motive to justify 'being wrong' and assume that it is somehow wrong to be criticized publicly about it.
With so many books out there the last thing wee need is a 'wrong' book. So we need sharp critiques to be able to avoid them simply in order to not waste our time with any known wrongs.
Kathryn,
Thank you for sharing your refreshing level of mental acuity!
2. (cont'd)
The difference, as I see it, is that different scientists' pursuits eventually converge to some degree of agreement, but different religions do not necessarily converge at all.
.
But I could be wrong! :-)
I have to say I think she used metaphors VERY well to convey her ideas.
Very interesting
Being wrong is not great. The ability to understand (once ine a while) that you are wrong is. I have a "black box" theory. When you learn, you discover black boxes. They are inputs and outputs to other black boxes. Let call it The Arrangement (of your mindset). If somebody shows you (or you discover it by youself) that there is more diversity etc etc... everything collapses - paradigm shift happens.
If u know that you are wrong you also know that you are smart and getting smarter and smarter.
aye!
At 16:42, she asserts that it's unenlightened to champion a certain philosophy and encourage others to follow it...yet she wrote a book about her philosophy of us embracing when we're wrong, and this lecture is her championing her philosophy in order to promote her book. #hypocrisy
This is interesting. Neurotic repression makes us "wrong", which is something we all suffer from. We internalise our childhoods and then see the world through them, like psycho-emotional sunglasses that we can never take off. It's the same thing. I explain this explicitly if you want to google: "understanding mental sickness" and "building utopia".
@Zandoraful The speaker's examination of "Being Wrong" is too generalized to be useful. "Being Wrong" in front of your mom or teacher is very different from "Being Wrong" in front of your subordinates or bosses, especially when you got a group of troops to lead in a company, or when you got a bunch of mouths to feed back at home. Capitch?
@jdfodio I disagree. There's just no question about the fact that sometimes people have false beliefs and she's not a hypocrite for believing that. Sure, I can see the point that you're trying to make but I think it's far fetched and a bit paradoxical. It's no good reason to dismiss the wisdom she's trying to spread.
14:45
@judoyodan so after watching this video, at how we can be wrong, you think there is no possible way, at all, that we could have been engineered. It is just impossible, the only possible option is that we did evolution through a massively random chance? You might want to watch this video again.
...not relevant in that sense that some philosophers like Descartes, think that the only thing that can be certain, is our existence through reson: "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefor I am)
When the subject matter is this dry, you need a very good speaker to keep it interesting. She needs to either find better material, or become a better speaker. Reminds me of my attempts at public speaking -- people like us are better at writing.
How is this the highest rated video of RSA's? First of all the talk says very little of substance. All she really said was that when we are wrong we think we are right and by then it's too late. I don't think she was pompous as much as nervous though, i'm not giving her shit for that but, a lot of the things she said were hard for me to understand. Most notably the statement that "Most science experiments fail." I don't understand how any experiment can fail. 2 pence
@zeeviz Yea. Its always easier to speak a language than to write it. Good luck with your English!
@demalnun
"artists have given up on truth" - that is simply unspecified arbitrary statement which can not be proven and thus has no value. The term 'truth' is used as an umbrella and it's not defined at all ... so statement also has no meaning whatsoever.
It would be awesome if christians and muslims would watch this and somehow realise that they are wrong about there being an invisible sky daddy.
The world would take a gigantic step forward.
@zeeviz taught*
You could not over-simplify the issue by talking about it out of context. Say, when your immediate means of subsistence (as Karl Marx put it) is controlled by your boss, you "have to be" politically correct, despite it might be wrong if you are in another context (such as making confession to your church's preist). Any abstraction of the topic out of context may run into the fallacy of "over-generalization", which renders the conclusions impractical and meaningless.
i think im in love -_- not the best speaker tho
@bluefootedpig, lol...you're joking, right? "Evidence for intilligent design?"
You are wrong about that, my friend. there is NO evidence. An argument from ignorance is not evidence. You are also taking Dawkins WAYYYY out of context. I saw the entire interview, and Dawkins' response. He agrees with me, I'm affraid.
wohoo! i love the being wrong... hate all those positive thinking believers, delusional thinkers
@IdeaSponge, at some point, you have to call a "duck", a duck. There is as much evidence for the Abrahamic god as there is for Thor, Odin, Krishna and Zeus. But yet these Christians think that they are correct in their belief, not seeing the obvious, that they are just part of the "delusion de jour." As an open minded person, I am willing to consider alot of things. Superstitions, like Christianity, are not amoungst them. Nor should they be for any reasonable person.
You think you're wrong? Now try playing poker...
RSA should replace the bible
@Intellisecular yah. women are usually wrong. ha
I'm sure it was a good talk, but I couldn't get past her weird slow, but sporadic talking style. I quit after 5 min.
@IdeaSponge, sorry if I flasely accused you of being religious. It's just that when someone is as clueless as you obviously are, it is usually because of participation in a dogmatic delusion like Christianity or Islam.
You might want to educate yourself on matters of science. Your statement about scientific "theory" demonstrates a lack of understanding of the word and the concept. (A little help in the grammar and spelling department might not be a bad idea, either.) Good luck.
@judoyodan Wait a second... i need a little humility to admit that "I don't know" yet you refuse to admit that you could be wrong or maybe you don't know? And lack of evidence isn't evidence that it isn't possible. Before every great discovery, there was no evidence. There might have been theories, but if we went with your thinking, the world would still be flat as there is no "evidence" for it. And I never said anything about God, I only said that perhaps we were engineered, maybe dna was made.
This could have been an entertaining talk...but she let herself down. :(