You might have heard about Galileo Galilei before. Galileo was an Italian scientist in the late 16th and early 17th century, who was particularly interested in astronomy. Back in those days, people were convinced that the Earth was the center of the universe. The main reasoning behind this came from the church, which was perhaps the most powerful institution in Europe during that time. When interpreted literally, a few texts in the bible, such as 1 Chronicles 16:30, suggest that the Earth is static in its place.
Tremble before Him, all the Earth. The world is firmly established, it shall never be moved.
1 Chronicles 16:30 (New Revised Standard Version)
Among other things, these texts were found to be proof that the Earth had to be the center around which all other planets, as well as the sun and moon, revolved. However, another scientist by the name of Nicolaus Copernicus, had already proposed an astronomical model in which the sun was the center of the universe (heliocentrism), based on his observations of the movement of the stars and the planets. Before this theory really got picked up on, Copernicus passed away. It was Galileo who, after studying the skies himself for a long time, became a proponent and defender of the theory. After fierce criticism from the church, as well as from many other prominent scientists of his time, Galileo became under investigation of the Roman Inquisition. They eventually concluded that heliocentrism was “foolish and absurd in philosophy”, and above all, heresy. As punishment, he was forced to retract his support of the theory and spend the remaining of his life under house arrest.
Many such stories are littered throughout history. When Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, he faced similar accusations of heresy. Einstein’s theory of relativity was initially met with a lot of resistance, and ridiculed as “totally impractical and absurd”, mainly because it was challenging the status-quo theory of ether. Philipp von Jolly advised the young Max Planck not to study physics, since “there was not much left to do”. Physics had already been figured out. This was of course before Planck became one of the main contributors to the quantum revolution in physics, opening up an entire new realm of physics that had as of yet not been discovered.
What all of these have in common should be obvious by now. Each one of these men challenged the status-quo, and all of them got either ridiculed or punished for it. But eventually it was found that they had all touched upon a major scientific discovery that held a lot of truth to it. In this essay I want to explore this phenomenon further and put it in the perspective of today. In the era of global warming, Covid-19, and lots of political unrest, there seem to be endless debates about what is fact and what is fiction. A better understanding of facts and beliefs, and how they play a role in our lives, could go a long way in clarifying the situation and bringing people closer together. My goal with this piece above all is to get you to think and consider this topic deeply.
Analyzing debate
Ever since I was young, I enjoyed playing devil’s advocate, trying my best to defend the most unpopular standpoints. This often got me into arguments with people, sometimes turning into heated discussions. Over time however, I became more and more proficient at formulating good arguments, and keeping the discussions civil. After having many discussions like these, I started to realize a number of things.
First of all, most of these discussions ended inconclusively. Neither party had been able to convince the other, and there were no convincing facts that could decide the matter at hand. I found that people (including myself) are usually very stubborn about their opinions, sometimes in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of their viewpoint.
Furthermore, there was usually a large asymmetry in knowledge about the subject, both parties were aware of relevant knowledge for the discussion that the other party was unaware of. But most of all, I started to realize that what we were really discussing were opinions and beliefs, not facts, and that this is a very important distinction to make. You can be either wrong or right when it comes to facts. But there is no such thing when it comes to beliefs.
Belief: To assume something to be true which you cannot know for certain to be true.
However, very often when we discuss complex topics, especially when they are related to something we believe in strongly, we act as if we are right and the others are wrong.
Levels of discussion
Let’s unpack this situation a little further. Whenever people are discussing something, there are different levels at which the discussion can take place, usually depending on the knowledge of the participants. I think these levels can roughly be identified as follows:
- Discussing the summary of facts and accompanying ideology that you were taught or read/heard somewhere. (education, news articles, social media)
- Discuss the relevant sources for the topic at hand. (scientific papers, data reports, primary sources)
- Discuss the literature and knowledge body at large from all points of view, and consider a complete picture of the topic.
- Question and discuss the methods or argumentation used in the literature and knowledge body, or the fundamental science.
In the interest of time, and since most of us aren’t experts, nearly all discussions that we engage in will be at level 1. After all, most of us simply don’t have the time or the will to completely get to the bottom of something. To be fair, to be able to have a good discussion at level 3 or 4, you probably need to be a scholar of the subject. Realizing that in almost all cases we discuss at level 1, we can immediately identify some problems that make a discussion at that level problematic. For example…
The sources you based your viewpoint on, or you yourself might be:
- Cherry picking data (ignoring relevant information counter to one’s point of view)
- Biased for a certain point of view (unconsciously interpreting data to fit a narrative)
- Following a hidden agenda (deliberately framing data to fit a narrative)
- Misinterpreting the facts (due to lack of knowledge about the topic)
- Ignorant (unaware of relevant research and facts)
- Using flawed studies (faulty conclusions, measurements or methodology)
- Using flawed reasoning (making faulty assumptions, generalizations or using fallacies)
- Using outdated science (not using the latest insights that corrected older ones)
- Lacking nuance (black/white argumentation, ignoring relevant details, making faulty generalizations)
- Assuming we know it all, and that what we know is the absolute truth now, and in the future (read the introduction of this essay to know why this is an erroneous assumption).
While I think that most sources of information hold a lot of truth to them, one can imagine that after reading this list, there is quite a lot to be skeptical about as well. In every article or lesson there seems to be a spectrum of information, going from verifiable straight-up facts, to a grey area where things become less and less certain. This decrease in certainty is usually accompanied by an increase in complexity. Let’s grab a relatively controversial example:
Straight-up verifiable facts:
- The climate is constantly changing.
- Climate changes partially as a function of the state of the Earth.
- Over the past 1000 years, the number of humans on Earth has increased dramatically, and we have made some very noticeable changes to the ecosystem.
Grey area:
- Climate change is mostly human-made.
- We predict X in year Y as a result of climate change.
Debates are often occurring in this grey area, where the complexity of the situation is so high that nobody actually knows the solution, or the truth. The problem is that nowadays lots of people claim what they believe to be the case as the absolute truth, and become rather aggressive and oppressive when confronted with alternative points of view. Consider a number controversial or hot topics nowadays:
- How to deal with Covid-19? (masks, lockdowns, vaccinations)
- How bad is climate change? Should we worry about climate change? How to deal with it?
- What is the best human nutrition? (vegan, keto, pescatarian?)
- How does racism play a role in today’s society and how do we deal with it? (institutional racism, affirmative action, white privilege)
All of these topics are extremely complex issues that cover many fields of study. To be able to come up with something close to an answer to these questions would require a very broad and deep understanding of these fields of study. Not only that. It requires a lot of wisdom, courage and strength to be able to face these issues objectively, and dare to talk about it freely.
Yet, it seems like the majority of people already has an answer to these questions, without having any of that knowledge. Operating at level 1, we discuss the beliefs of others about these topics instilled upon us by peers, social media, the news. We look down upon others that think differently, censor them, exclude them, or belittle them. On top of that, we never even consider the alternative. We never go a level deeper and actually seriously consider the facts and think for ourselves. Sometimes I wonder: How are we different from the Roman Inquisition condemning Galileo? The people that tried to shame Einstein, or told Planck that we already know it all?
The role of belief
I think it is very important for us to acknowledge the level at which we are having discussions about complex issues. To realize that what we are doing is mostly discussing our opinions and beliefs, things that might be true or might be false. They are our subjective interpretations of the very limited information we have. We do not know the truth about most things. Most of us aren’t experts on anything, and most writers and influencers aren’t either. Let alone experts on several fields, and able to integrate all of these viewpoints into something that makes sense. Socrates famously said:
“although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know“
Socrates
Acknowledging that you know nothing makes you better off than most people. Because none of us really knows, but most of us think we know. Let’s continue on this train of thought and dive a little deeper in the concept of belief.
Sadhguru on belief, what should we look out for?
To do this, I want to introduce you to the wisdom of Sadhguru. A famous yogi and influential figure in India, who is well-known for his witty pragmatic advice and incredible charisma. I found his view on belief and its role in our live particularly interesting. He argues that every time we believe something, we make assumptions about something we don’t know for sure, and as a result stop looking for an answer. Our senses stop detecting things that might lead us to a better answer to the question we have. Slowly but surely when we get older, we keep making more and more assumptions, until at some point we are sleepwalking through life, metaphorically speaking. We don’t see or look for anything anymore, we already have it all figured out. And frankly, we don’t like to be proven wrong, so we close ourselves off for any signs of something that might lead us closer to the actual truth, especially a truth that might contradict what we believe.
That’s my short introduction, but I will let the man speak for himself. I encourage you to watch the videos, but for the readers I included the transcription. In this first bit, Sadhguru is asked to explain more about one of his past statements, in which he said that every belief is a little death in itself. He explains:
Transcript: The more conclusions you make, the less alive you become. They call this knowledge, this is not knowledge, this is just conclusions you are drawing about everything. See, with all this scientific exploration, the fact is that even today we do not know one single atom in its entirety. We know how to use them, we know how to use everything on this planet, but we don’t know a damn thing about anything. Over 90%, or 99%, of an atom is empty, we don’t know what that emptiness contains. Over 99% of the cosmos is empty, we don’t know what that is. So, this is like, I give you a million-piece jigsaw, but you found, in your hands, you have only three of them. With these three, you make a picture and you’re euphoric that you made a picture. Well, I’m sorry… there are a million pieces to this. Has anybody gathered all the pieces? No…. Then don’t make a picture.
Commentary: In this part Sadhguru reminds us that we actually know very little about the world. Most of it is still a mystery to us. Yet we make a little picture out of that which we know, and stop paying attention to anything outside of that.
Let’s hear some more.
Transcript: Somebody watching right now, they want to be able to begin to access this, and, if it’s a simple letting go of belief and dogma, or…
Letting go of believe and dogma is not simple. People are who they are only because of what they believe. Because without this they don’t know where they belong. To live here without belonging to anything, but still involved with everything, takes a lot. Most people belong, but they’re not involved. It is like belonging is like an insurance policy, it’s simply there. Involvement takes you. To be constantly involved with people around you, it takes you to be conscious and on. But I belong to you, I don’t have to do anything, I professed already I belong to you. I’m married to you, I belong to you, legally it’s settled, so I don’t have to be conscious of you, nor do I have to be involved with you, still I belong to you. So, belonging, believing, or identifying simply means, you have found a way to sleep through your life. It’s called sleep. If you say, we put our cat to sleep, what does it mean to you? That they killed their cat. Yes, I’m talking about sleep in that context. I believe this, I belong to this, I’m identified with this means, it’s sleep. That means, you’re partially dead. You made conclusions, which takes away the life that bubbles within you. This is why people are walking around like they are dying in installments.
Commentary: Continuing the same line of thinking, Sadhguru brings up another important point, which is the danger of belief, as well as the laziness that follows from people saying they belong to something or someone. Many people use belief systems as some sort of insurance, but they are not involved. Calling yourself a Christian and going to church every once in a while, just so you think you have a better chance of going to heaven. Meanwhile living a life that does not at all fit with the Christian values. Proudly professing you voted the Green party and therefore thinking you’re morally superior over all the other people that are destroying the planet (according to you). Meanwhile not putting in any effort to personally uphold the values you voted for. Being married, but not putting in any effort to have a successful relationship. After all, you’re already married, no need to be attractive anymore or to try to flirt or seduce your partner.
Belonging to something sometimes make us stop thinking, and in many cases it stops us from being involved. How often do we question our religion, nationality, culture, and other systems of belief we are part of? How involved are we in those things? Very often the answer is, we never questioned it, and we are minimally involved. Something to think about.
Let’s watch another short final clip.
Transcript: Yeah so, the notion of not knowing, the notion of responsibility, are two things that are really powerful…
Can I just correct that question? Not knowing is not a notion, it is a fact. It is not a notion. You really do not know a damn thing about this existence, isn’t it? We don’t even know a blade of grass in its entirety. We do not know a single atom in its entirety. We do not know a single cell in this body in its complete context. We do not. We know some things, we can manipulate a few things, but we don’t know much about it. So, it’s like this, let’s say we turn off all the lights. If the lights are on you can whistle and just walk around wherever you want in this building. We’ll turn off all the lights and make it pitch dark until you can’t even see your hands. Now, every step that you take, will you take it in utmost alertness, will you be fully awake or asleep? Fully awake. Fully awake. Why? Because you don’t know where is the next step. Just to live like this. If you simply live like this. Naturally, you are on the highway to enlightenment.
Everybody assumes and believes, because it is comfortable, to simply believe something. The very word belief means this: That I have concretized assumptions of which I know nothing about. Isn’t it so? Either you know or you do not know. Where does the belief come from? When you pretend what you do not know as “I know”. That’s belief. But you can’t believe something all by yourself. So you need a 100 people around you. That’s why always believers are in groups, seekers are alone.
Talk to me about a seeker, is that something useful to cultivate?
You don’t have to cultivate this. This is intrinsic to human intelligence. If you do not bullshit yourself with all kinds of things that you do not know as “you know”, it’s intrinsic to human intelligence to seek. You don’t have to teach seeking; you have to teach belief systems. You don’t have to teach seeking. If you don’t teach anything, everybody is a seeker. It is the nature of human intelligence, it naturally seeks. But people want to seek with the comfort of belief. They want to be in the belief system, and then seek. This is like tying your boat to the pier, and then rowing hard. It’s good, it’s not bad because it gives you good exercise, it’s like being on the treadmill. Most people are on the treadmill. Because they are not walking or running to go somewhere. They are just trying to tone their muscles. It’s perfectly fine. If that’s all you wish to do that’s fine. But if you want to go somewhere, you can’t tie your boat and then row, isn’t it? If you just let it go even if you don’t row it will go.
Commentary: I really like the metaphor Sadhguru gives us here. Letting go of all belief is like being in a pitch dark room. You’ll move with utmost cautiousness, all your senses maximally engaged. You’ll not want to miss any piece of information, and you certainly won’t fall asleep or be lazy. Having lots of beliefs on the other hand, is like moving in a room filled with light. You don’t have to pay any attention to your surroundings, and subsequently you turn off most of your awareness.
Something else he said is also an important realization. For beliefs to work, it has to be in groups. A seeker of truth does not need anybody to validate his beliefs, because he doesn’t have any. A believer needs the validation of others to feel secure about his belief. Even though I think Sadhguru is trying to criticize this behavior here, it can also be considered a strength of belief. Let me elaborate.
Yuval Noah Harrari, and the necessity of belief.
Although I think Sadhguru provides an important argument for being cautious with belief, assumptions, and thinking that we know what is fact in this world, there is also something to be said in favor of belief.
Like I mentioned before briefly in this essay, we don’t have the time to get to the bottom of everything by ourselves. We simply HAVE to believe things and trust people. Many things are also beyond the capacity of us humans to ever figure out, so the best we can do is perhaps to believe in something and act accordingly.
Furthermore, for lots of things the ‘truth’ is quite irrelevant to us. Think for example about quantum mechanics. This is a realm of physics where quite a few questions are still left unanswered. However, we know enough about it to make smart phones, and that’s what most people care about.
We believe space is there, because we can see the sun and the moon, our GPS works, and we might have seen some videos from the ISS. Could it all be fake, or very different from what we imagine it to be? Sure. But as it is it provides utility to us, and we put faith in our scientists because they seem to be making stuff that works based on their ideas, so there must be some truth to it at the very least.
Not to mention, money! The coins and pieces of paper we hold nowadays are quite worthless in itself. But with the correct print or inscription on it, we trade our time for it, and in turn trade it for food, and items. This system only works if all of us collectively believe in money, and agree upon its value.
Harrari on belief (from the book Sapiens)
Yuval Noah Harrari writes about this in his bestselling book Sapiens. In this book he goes into detail about the history of us “homo sapiens”, and how we evolved from rather silly apes to the intelligent world conquering monkeys we are today.
One of the fascinating researches on this development focuses on how we as humans were able to organize ourselves into groups. This turned out to be one of our major strengths and might be one of the several key elements that caused us to be still here today. One theory on this subject proposes that through gossip we were able to establish a social hierarchy. It allowed us to become connected through a web of social relationships and interactions. This theory has its limitations however. Harrari writes:
Sociological research has shown that the maximum natural size of a group bounded by gossip is about 150 individuals. Most people can neither intimately know, nor gossip effectively about, more than 150 other human beings. Below this threshold communities, businesses, social networks, and military units can maintain themselves mainly on intimate acquaintance and rumor-mongering. A platoon of thirty soldiers or even a company of a hundred soldiers can function well on the basis of intimate relations, with a minimum of formal discipline. A small family business can survive and flourish without a board of directors, a CEO, or an accounting department.
But once the threshold of 150 individuals is crossed, things can no longer work that way. You cannot run a division with thousands of soldiers the same way you run a platoon. How did Homo Sapiens manage to cross this critical threshold, eventually founding cities comprising tens of thousands of inhabitants and empires ruling hundreds of millions? The secret was probably the appearance of fiction. Large numbers of strangers can cooperate successfully by believing in common myths.
Any large-scale human cooperation – whether a modern state, a medieval church, an ancient city or an archaic tribe – is rooted in common myths that exist only in people’s imagination.
Churches are rooted in common religious myths. Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on a crusade, or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe that God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed Himself to be crucified to redeem our sins.
States are rooted in common national myths. Two Serbs who have never met might risk their lives to save one another because both believe in the existence of the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland and the Serbian flag.
Judicial systems are rooted in common legal myths. Two lawyers who have never met can nevertheless combine efforts to defend a complete stranger because they both believe in the existence of laws, justice, human rights and the money paid out in fees.
Yet none of these things exists outside the stories that people invent and tell one another. There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.
(Sapiens, pages 29 – 31)
Harrari brings up an interesting point. I think we can all identify in some way with the examples he brought up. We feel connected with complete strangers through large systems of belief. In that sense, belief has been essential for us humans to survive, thrive, and get to where we are today. It has a lot of positive aspects to it, strangers helping each other out because they share a belief system. On the other hand, it can cause wars, division, and hatred between people. Regardless of whether it is a good or a bad thing, it seems that it is simply a part of us humans. It would be futile to try to erase such belief systems. Instead, I think we should focus on how we think about them and deal with them.
Before we do that and wrap this all up, I think there is one more important topic to touch upon. A very popular catchphrase nowadays is something similar to “Science shows that….”. Whenever someone is trying to make a point, there is much more weight behind it if there is some study that backs it up. At several points throughout this essay I already showed that there is some reason to remain skeptical about “what science shows”. To me it seems that nowadays you could find a scientific study to back up any point of view you might have. To finish I’d briefly like to discuss this matter in more detail.
Theories are not facts.
There is a specific branch of philosophy concerned with the following question and its derivatives: “How can we know anything (to be true)?”. This question might seem rather ridiculous at first glance, but when you delve deeper into the philosophy you start questioning whether you know anything at all. Let’s take for example the famous thought experiment of Descartes, which I think has been one of the major inspirations for the movie “the Matrix”. Descartes pondered upon this question himself, how can I know what is real, and how do I even know that I exist. He argued that all that he sees and feels around him might well be a dream, an illusion, and there would be no way for him to distinguish between reality and a dream. This lead eventually to his most famous quote, which is perhaps more famous than the man himself: “I think, therefore I am” (Cogito, ergo sum). Descartes had concluded: it is impossible to know whether I am in a dream, a simulation, or in the real world. But, since I am thinking about it, I must exist, there is no way around that. Where I exist, and in what form I exist, and even whether these thoughts are mine or manufactured, doesn’t change that fact.
This idea of questioning reality was also pondered upon in ancient China. Perhaps one of my favorite little stories from the Zhuangzi, a Daoist book, goes as follows:
“Once upon a time, I dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was myself. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.”
Zhuangzi (translation by Lin Yutang)
In searching for an answer to the question of what knowledge is, and how we can obtain it, philosophers identified another problem which is very relevant for our discussion. This problem is known as “the induction problem”. Induction is the method most often used in science to formulate scientific theories. It rests on two propositions:
- Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class.
- Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has been observed in the past.
Suppose for example, that one wants to figure out how many different colors of swans there are out there. This person organizes a world-wide bird-watching event, in which people over the entire globe photograph the swans they find and send the information to a central place where it is collected and reviewed. Now suppose this event was an enormous success, and that there are not too many swans. They managed to photograph at least 95% of the swans in existence. After carefully reviewing every photograph, it was found that every single swan was white. The researcher then concludes that, since 95% of all swans are white, all swans must be white, and for the next 100 years, this is accepted as the truth. That is, until one day, a picture surfaces of a mythical creature, of which many claim until this day it must have been a fake. A black swan.
This example is a metaphor for something that occurred many times in the history of science. Induction is also a frequent method used in business, psychology, and data science. In business for example, a common method of preparing students is doing business cases. The general aim here is that by doing enough of them, you can generalize some of the principles and assume them as truths. Which you can then subsequently apply to the business cases you’ll face in your career.
This thought experiment however suggests that this method of gaining knowledge will not lead to a true statement. Does that mean that we don’t know any truths? Well, let’s think about this for a moment. Even though not ALL swans are white, it seems that at least 99.9% of them are white. So, the statement “All swans are white” is false, but nevertheless as a general rule, pretty much all swans are white. So even though the statement is factually incorrect, it provides some utility to us, because it’s correct 99.9% of the time. Going back to Sapiens, Harrari writes about this phenomenon. He writes:
Newton showed that the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics. Some chapters (physics for example) boil down to clear-cut equations; but scholars who attempted to reduce biology, economics and psychology to neat Newtonian equations have discovered that these fields have a level of complexity that makes such an inspiration futile. This did not mean, however, that they gave up on mathematics. A new branch of mathematics was developed over the last 200 years to deal with the more complex aspects of reality: statistics.
(Sapiens, page 285)
Harrari suggests here that indeed, some of the fields of study cannot be reduced to clear-cut equations, facts, and verifiable truths. To still be able to infer some knowledge about these fields of studies, humans invented statistics. Going back to our story about swans. Statistically speaking, we can assume all swans are white, even if in reality there might be one or two black swans around. Using statistics, we can still infer some useful conclusions out of our research, while not ignoring the fact that anomalies exist. The real question here then is, can we call this knowledge? About this, Harrari writes the following:
The real test of ‘knowledge’ is not whether it is true, but whether it empowers us. Scientists usually assume that no theory is 100 percent correct. Consequently, truth is a poor test of knowledge. The real test is utility. A theory that enables us to do new things constitutes knowledge.
(Sapiens, page 289)
I think this is a very interesting point of view. It acknowledges that we know very little truths. However, absolute truths do not seem to be necessary in most cases. We know enough so that the knowledge we have can be of practical use to us, even though we might not know every detail or how it truly works.
Let’s recap.
In the beginning of this essay we saw that throughout history, the status-quo beliefs of society and of science have been proven wrong repeatedly. It was only later that people recognized this however. At the moment these persons first publicized their thoughts, they often got ridiculed and sometimes even punished for saying what they thought was the truth.
Next, we observed that most discussions are held at a very superficial level. That we can safely assume that what we are discussing are opinions and beliefs, often a long distance away from the facts and the actual truth. We also saw that there is plenty of reason to be skeptical about what we read and hear.
Then we dove into the phenomenon of belief, and examined the view of Sadhguru on this matter. Like Socrates, Sadhguru emphasizes on how little we actually know. He warns us for the danger of belief. The more assumptions and beliefs we have, the more we close our senses on life, and the less we pay attention to what is actually going on. As a result, we might find life to be less and less interesting, since we think we have it all figured out. On top of that, feeling like we belong to things sometimes also makes us lazy and causes us to be less involved.
We followed up with looking at the positive aspects of belief, and why belief is essential in the way we live as humans today. We learned from Harrari that fiction and the belief in common myths is what allowed us to work together in large groups and create enormous social systems. This in turn is partially responsible for our survival through the ages and the creation of modern-day civilization.
Finally, we talked a little bit about the philosophy that is concerned with the question: “what is knowledge, and how can we obtain it?”. The induction method is the most common method used in science to obtain knowledge, but as we saw from the swan example, this method cannot lead to absolute truths. Harrari suggests that we should therefore not see knowledge as something that is 100% true, but as something that provides utility to us. This can be the case when it is true most of the time. As a result, we can use statistics to come up with useful conclusions in complex fields of study in which it is simply not possible to explain things with exact science.
Important takeaways
I can imagine reading all this confused you more than that it cleared things up for you. To provide you with something actionable, I’ll give you some of the important takeaways from this essay.
First of all, I think we should realize that we really know very little, and that the comfort of belief makes us think we do and forget to ask questions and look for answers. On top of that, it seems that some topics are too sensitive to even talk about, similarly to what Galileo was facing. But just like Galileo, I think we should observe, research, and make our own conclusions, even if they seem to contradict the status-quo.
Did you ever question the things your parents taught you, your religion, your culture, the popular beliefs most people hold in society? Why didn’t you? Are you sure you have it all figured out?
My hope is that when we realize that most of what we think we know are beliefs, we become more motivated to get to the bottom of things, and at the very least become more critical about what we think we know. Keep your senses sharp, keep being involved with life, always remain critical of your own beliefs, and those that are held by others.
Secondly, when we are in a discussion about a complex issue, we should acknowledge that in almost all cases, neither of us knows the truth. That what we are discussing is a belief, of which we don’t know if it is true or false. Hopefully this will lead us to have some more respect for each other, and have a more civil argument. Just know that even though intuitively you may not like the opposing arguments, there is often no concluding evidence to show that you are right, and they are wrong.
Realize that it is futile to fight over beliefs. The only way to find out which belief is closest to the truth is to get to the bottom of it. No amount of fighting or discussion is going to prove you right, and it is often a waste of energy.
I think it is important to recognize the necessity and utility of belief, but at the same time acknowledge it is a belief. Not an absolute truth, not a fact. There are lots of things we do not know or understand. These two can exist simultaneously. We do not have to refute anything that we can’t really know, and be skeptic about everything. But at the same time, we should not close our senses and stop seeking. We shouldn’t assume that we know, but realize the limitations of ourselves, humanity, and science.
If you liked this essay…
Let me know in the comments or in a DM if you enjoyed reading this essay. I’m very curious to hear what your thoughts are on this topic and if you think I misinterpreted something or missed an important argument. I’m always looking to learn more about this myself. If you have the time, I encourage you to listen to ten minutes of this podcast with Tim Ferris and Naval Ravikant, in which they touch upon the topics of this essay as well. Naval has a very interesting view, it’s worth a listen!
Image Sources & Copyright
- https://www.thegwpf.com/sanjeev-sabhlok-climate-science-violates-the-basic-precepts-of-science/
- https://southeusummit.com/europe/spain/spains-2019-budget-in-doubt-as-far-right-vox-makes-gains-in-regional-elections-in-andalucia/
- https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/423/what-is-your-favorite-data-analysis-cartoon
All credit goes to the authors and/or owners of these images. Please contact me if you want your image removed from this page, or if you want your credits added. Wherever possible I used images published under the Creative Common Licensing.