Check Your Assumptions
Admitting error and making corrections is a key step in the quest for knowledge
People like to be right. We also like to think that we have all the right facts to justify our views. But talk to any little kid who asks “Why?” after everything you say, and within five minutes you will hear yourself saying the words, “That’s just the way it is!”
At the root of every fact lies an assumption. Assumptions are theoretical statements about the world which we cannot necessarily prove, but which we intuitively understand to be true and to which we are willing to commit. They are not always correct, of course. We hold or discard them when the conclusions dependent on those assumptions demonstrate strong predictive ability. Some assumptions are correct in some contexts, but insufficient in others. As we postulate, reason, experiment, and commit, we create new, stronger assumptions that give us a clearer picture of reality.
The mark of true intelligence is not the ability to memorize facts or use cunning rhetoric. Rather, it is the willingness to admit error, learn from mistakes, and quickly correct course. We all make mistakes, but it is critical to correct our mistakes when we discover them and resolve never to make those same mistakes again. Oftentimes that requires us to consistently challenge our own assumptions and see things in a different light.
Unfortunately, many influential movements over the past century find their roots in false assumptions and fallacies. Rather than concede and admit error, the leaders who back these movements tend to double down. It doesn’t help that the high priests of these orthodoxies are often scholars who provide a veneer of scientific legitimacy.
Science is a process of discovery in which all sorts of assumptions are made, but good science continuously questions even the most basic assumptions in order to root out the false ones in favor of the truth. In order for science to succeed in its purpose, everything must be fair game to be called into question. That doesn’t mean that scientists should doubt the utility of every single scientific law or theory in making scientific progress. Rather, it means that when a compelling argument is brought against even the most basic assumption, scientists ought to listen and reconsider.
I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.
Richard Feynman
Ironically, my experience with scientists has been that they can be some of the most hard-headed people on Earth. These people have spent much of their lives being told how smart they were and are not used to being wrong. Once they commit to an idea, it is very difficult to reel them back in. Admitting an error, especially a long-standing error in their life’s work, would be a blow to their reputation and their ego, something that no one wants to undergo.
Conversely, some of the most successful scientists I have come across performed relatively poorly in their studies, but kept at it because they were passionate about discovering the wonders of nature. These people were used to being told that they were wrong or that they were not cut out for the big leagues. So, if they made a mistake in their research, it wasn’t a blow to their ego.
There is something else that affects the ability of researchers to question their assumptions: money. Academic researchers are not just curious thinkers who want to better understand how things work. They are employees who are expected to produce. That means securing funding and publishing results in academic journals. There is not a lot of room for error. Admitting a mistake means losing funding, prestige, and maybe a job. Questioning the consensus held by those who control the knobs on the funding spigot will result in exile to No Grants Land.
Is it any wonder then that modern-day academia has become a refuge for dogma? We would do well to treat anything being paraded as The Science with a healthy dose of skepticism, especially when it comes from an academic institution.
In my next few posts, I am going to take a look at three influential researchers whose work is rooted in false assumptions or fallacies. The first two are modern-day researchers, Yaneer Bar-Yam and Robin DiAngelo. The third is the famous Karl Marx.
I have not invested the hundreds of hours it would take to fully comprehend everything these people have written. But you don’t have to dig too deep to find the fallacy or false assumption upon which their life’s work is built. By analyzing their basic logical errors, we can hone our own ability to detect the weaknesses in an ideological or scientific movement without having to go down a rabbit hole.
This is the first of a four part series.
Part 2: Yaneer Bar-Yam and the Zero-COVID Zealots