We humans in our lives are gathering information through our senses and we are also analyzing and converting this info into knowledge. The knowledge base that is created in our mind is the source we label things bad and good in this world.
In any occasions we may overestimate the value of what we know (our experience is limited and the world is too complicated to be described by a hand full simple rules ) and make erroneous prediction/judgement, thinking too highly of our knowledge.
There are many examples in science Math/Chemistry/Physics also our day to day lives. For example some physicists years before the emergence of quantum theory predicted that nothing of great value is left to be found in Physics.
I am wondering "How should we handle our conceit of hindsight about our little knowledge of the world ?"
Thanx in advance.
The best way to handle our conceit of hindsight is to display modesty of foresight at the start. In all my books, I begin by remarking, "In this book I plan to cover A and B. I may make mistakes in what I cover, but I hope that others, by taking into account what I may have ascertained correctly, and by correcting my errors, can go on to cover C and D."
Well, this is a classical philosophical question, that can be traced back to Socrates and his famous sentence about "knowing to know nothing".
Let's say that there is no easy way to escape the fundamental truth we cannot know everything, yet we can know something, which is in the middle between knowing nothing and knowing everything. What I'm trying to say is to pay attention not to fall in either one of the following dangerous attitude: skepticism, we can't know anything; scientism, we can know everything.
If you closely consider each science, you'll find that almost every field of knowledge has developed its own remedy to the hybris of knowing everything, starting from Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle in Physics, ranging to Gödel's incompleteness theorem in Logic.
knowing not to know everything is a kind of knowledge itself, a valuable one, so, as strange it could sound, in order to not overestimate what we know or the knowing itself, we need "to know" how little we know about it. It's an internal process of the knowledge that leads who knows on a path of realistic umility, which in turn is a fundamental and epistemological virtue.
I hope this could be helpful. I've not provided any further bibliography, since I got the impression you are interested into the theoretical frame of the topic rather than its historical bases.
Ciao
Giampaolo
The best way to handle our conceit of hindsight is to display modesty of foresight at the start. In all my books, I begin by remarking, "In this book I plan to cover A and B. I may make mistakes in what I cover, but I hope that others, by taking into account what I may have ascertained correctly, and by correcting my errors, can go on to cover C and D."
Thanx Giampaolo I like the " knowing not to know everything is a kind of knowledge itself" bit.
Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world.
ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER
Epistemic Humblenss versus Epistemic Arrogance. Researchers and scholars should be humble. The more science and knowledge we acquire, the more humble we should be.
Well, because the expanse of the unknown is huge compared to the known, we always humble our selves know much less, when we know more. The size of established knowledge is much smaller than the abundance and availability of truth in nature to be discovered and verified. Therefore it is a natural phenomena to feel knowing less when we know more.
I have seen many people who speak wrong things extremely confidently and smartly, which leads others to believe these as true. I fully agree with dear Kamal and Mahfuz that scientists must humbly admit ignorance, when not sure.
Dear All,
The knowledge available for us is even enormous for our perception. The time of polymaths has been over. We should be satisfied to be able to follow our special scientific field and to be familiar somehow with the world around us.
Nelson and Kamal mentioned modesty. I think without modesty – which is a real merit – we should be content with our slow and limited capacity because we cannot do anything against it.
Dear All,
Debi commented on people talking confidently rubbish and nonsense. I found there is another kind of people who talk commonplaces and repeats them always. I think these people are hampering the reflection and with their boring behaviour – involuntarily – try to move spiritual challenges toward mainstream directions and hinder imagination and so diminish the discovery of the world.
Dear All,
I feel a man with a normal self evaluation experiences every day his/her ignorance and imperfectness. We should get accustomed to them.
I think mediocre ignorant people with good intention can be the happiest in this world.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Cognitive Science
- Mind