Navigating through a world full of nonsense
The world around us is steeped in nonsensical ideas, and always has been. Over the last few centuries science has made some headway against absurd beliefs, establishing a solid corpus of actual knowledge, with spectacular results in terms of technological progress. Yet it has been a hard slog, resisted at every step by the forces of superstition and foolishness, and it can still be a struggle for an individual -- even an educated and rational individual -- to reach a genuine understanding of what's true and what isn't.
Why is this? The human brain, like everything evolution produces, is optimized for survival and reproduction under the primitive conditions in which it evolved. It is not optimized for logical thinking, nor for accurately understanding the world around it, though it has developed some capacity for such things as a by-product of its increased general intelligence. But those abilities don't come naturally to it -- they need to be learned, and part of that is learning to recognize the shortcomings we have.
The book starts out with an overview of those shortcomings -- why we are not as good at accurately understanding the world, or even at perceiving it, as we believe we are. Our sensory data (sight, hearing, and so on) come with a lot of gaps which the brain fills in based on expectation, past experience, and whatever ideas are floating around in the local culture. Thus people constantly mistake airplane lights or the planet Venus for flying saucers, even seeing details of their appearance which are not actually there, or assign humanoid or animal forms to random shadows or other inanimate phenomena. Our memories are patchy and selective, and prone to a kind of editing after the fact; what we remember is mostly not raw experiences but how we processed and interpreted them. We have a strong bias toward interpreting the world in terms of conscious agents doing things on purpose, skewing our view of what in fact are random events.
The next section discusses our susceptibility to various kinds of faulty arguments and ways of thinking, including confirmation bias, cherry-picking data to support a preferred conclusion, failure to recognize coincidence when we see it, and many subtler types of error.
The book then covers numerous specific mistaken ideas and claims through the years, explaining how we know they are, in fact, mistaken (or in a few cases, outright fraud). Chapters are allocated to psychic powers, perpetual-motion machines, global-warming denialism, popular misunderstandings of quantum mechanics, "intelligent design" (thinly-disguised creationism), N-rays, ghosts, naturopathy, exorcism, and many more. A few of these errors, such as N-rays, were created and cultivated by scientists themselves -- and there's a lesson there. One of the reasons why science is the only "way of knowing" about the universe that actually works, is that it assumes scientists have biases just like everyone else, and it requires specific, stringent procedures to ensure that experimenters' own biases and beliefs do not taint the results of their experiments. On occasions when these precautions are not strictly followed, experiments can yield worthless results. The essence of science is in its processes, and in the requirement that any experiment be described in enough detail that other scientists can do it themselves and see whether they get the some result -- this is how the claims about N-rays were ultimately debunked.
There is a shorter section on media misreporting about science, which is a huge problem. Most MSM articles about science are written by people with almost no understanding of the subject, and sensationalize new findings to maximize readership (this is why almost every new discovery is described as overturning our understanding of evolution or astronomy or whatever, when in fact it does no such thing). A final chapter discusses raising children to be skeptical and open-minded, knowing how to distinguish sense from nonsense on their own.
For most of history human progress was glacially slow, with the mind suffocated by tradition, religion, superstition, and vast ignorance. There were occasional glimmers of evidence-based thinking -- in ancient Babylon, the Hellenistic Greek world, the medieval Middle East -- and these made some impressive discoveries, but were eventually snuffed out as the darkness descended again. Then, just a mere few centuries ago, the principles of real science -- the tools for developing a logical, testable understanding of the world based on hard evidence -- became firmly established, and science began moving forward as a systematic enterprise. The result has been a massive explosion of technological progress -- steam power, electricity, flight, radio, modern vaccines, antibiotics, the doubling of the average human life-span, food security such as humanity had never known before, space probes, the computer revolution, and the internet. It's important to understand how this was achieved, because those forces of darkness, people with no understanding of or respect for science, still mentally trapped in outdated world-views and non-evidence-based quackery of various kinds, are still out there, eager to attack science and stop progress in its tracks or even drag us backwards. This book will help you to know them when you see them, and understand exactly why they're wrong.


12 Comments:
That sounds like an excellent book. I'm constantly astounded by the contentious claims that people make on the basis of flimsy or non-existent evidence. Transgender ideology instantly comes to mind as a whole package of unfounded nonsense.
Thanks. I just finished reading it and knew I had to post about it. The trans nonsense hadn't really emerged yet when this was written, but if it had, I'm sure they'd have gone to town on it.
I'll have to put this on my to be read list. I've read a similar book about why we think the way we do based on primitive tendencies, but can't remember the title. It's bugging me that I can't remember nor find it right now, but I am fascinated by how our primitive brain works to protect us to survive the moment by perceiving dangers that are not present and how we have to learn to overcome our natural instincts in order to gain knowledge about the world around us.
Sounds like a fascinating Read. I admit I'm very Superstitious and probably inherited a lot of my Beliefs based on the Parental Cultures I was Raised in. Dad was Native American and they have a lot of very different Beliefs than the Non-Indigenous, still to this day. My Mom was Welsh but had Romani heritage and her people also were particularly Superstitious about many things. Logic doesn't always prevail tho' about many things we Believe or fail to Believe in. I agree that lately it seems Leadership is trying hard to take us backwards and not pay any attention to the actual Science that has been moving us forward and has been so beneficial to Society, it's a shame. One step forward, Two steps back... I had a Geneticist Friend who told me my Dad's feelings that Race was only a Manmade construct was correct. She said Genetics and DNA can tell a Canine is a Canine, but cannot tell you what Breed of Dog it is, just that it's a Dog... and the same for Humans. She said there is no "Ethnic" DNA and traceable DNA can only really pinpoint what part of the Globe, over time, one probably originated from based on how many people with similar DNA still reside in those locations. So, no "Racial" DNA at all, a Human is just a Human, tho' Skeletal Remains can tell Gender and some of the particulars of Ethnicity... as would a Dog Skeleton too of coarse.
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman
John: Thanks. I may look into that other book.
It's striking how much natural selection has favored traits which don't actually align with the kind of objective and logical thinking we value now. For example, a cave man could mistake a shadow for a tiger a hundred times and not be in danger of death, but mistake a tiger for a shadow even once, and that's the end of him and his genes. So evolution has favored a tendency to interpret anything even vaguely similar to a dangerous animal or person as being a threat. That's why we so often "see" animals or people where in fact there's only a shadow or a rock or something.
In the same way, when stone-age adults told the children, "don't go near the river, there are crocodiles there", the kids who took their word for it were more likely to survive than the kids who went down to the river to see for themselves whether there were really crocodiles. Evolution has given us an inborn tendency to believe and obey authority figures rather than investigating and thinking for ourselves -- even though in modern times this has very bad consequences.
Bohemian: The book does discuss the human tendency to absorb beliefs uncritically from parents and the surrounding culture. Almost all people on Earth grow up with the same religious beliefs as their parents had, for example. I think reading the book will help with evaluating such legacies objectively, even so.
I'm afraid that's not true about there being no genetic markers specific to different populations. There are plenty. As I discussed here, a recent genetic study of the British Isles was able to identify genetic markers characteristic of German or Scandinavian ancestry, which are distinguishable from markers indicating ancestry from the originally Celtic-speaking peoples native to Britain -- and those groups are so similar in appearance that you can't even tell them apart on sight. So there are certainly plenty of identifiable genetic markers showing east Asian, black African, Caucasian, etc ancestry which are distinguishable from each other. In fact, it's a fairly common thing to hear of white people in the US South, and in South Africa, having their genes analyzed and discovering that they actually have some black ancestry they didn't know about -- they look completely white, but nevertheless have a few black African genetic markers in their genomes.
Took a crack at some of the issues involved in this awhile back. It's more about the
neurophysiology than the higher order processes that influence it.
https://farcornercafe.blogspot.com/2022/01/we-humans-like-to-think-of-ourselves-as.html
PS - for some reason the comment section didn't provide me an option to ID myself other than a url.
Pliny
Sorry, but I don't agree with the view that free will is an illusion. If it were, there would be no purpose or even meaning in talking about, say, why people do things, since we would just be automata predestined to believe and do whatever we do. But that's a discussion I've already had and don't really care to revisit.
If you want to comment without logging in, click on "Anonymous" next to "Comment as" to get the drop-down menu, then choose "Name/URL". You can just enter a name and leave the URL field blank.
Sadly, I have hit a mental overload in recent months that I am struggling to work through. I'll get through this, but for now, I just cannot find the focus. Been reading a fascinating book by Erik Larson, "Dead Wake", about the sinking of the Lusitania. And the book just sits... next to my reading glasses...
I would love the book you have outlined. I'll consider it when my "next reads" list comes up.
Thanks!
R
Understandable. This is a book that would take a lot of mental focus to get the most out of it.
Looks fascinating, and I appreciate the overview—especially in this time of AI “hallucinations” and conspiracy theories being mouthed by so-called leaders.
I found the explanation for the bias to averting danger most interesting, and the failure of the N-rays was new to me and so timely, as I’d just focused on the misappropriation of the “replication” processes at HHS, where they are now seeking to undermine long-accepted scientific findings (re: vaccines, etc) for decidedly non-scientific pursuits.
Annie: Thanks. Part of the problem with N-rays was that national pride got involved. They were "discovered" in France, shortly after X-rays were discovered by a German, and a lot of people in France wanted to believe their country had achieved something equally important to match the big German discovery. It biased their thinking. But British and German scientists who repeated the French experiments couldn't see the N-rays, and eventually it was proven that they didn't exist.
Post a Comment
Please be on-topic and read the comments policy. Spam, trolls, and fight-pickers will be deleted. If you don't have a Blogspot account and aren't sure how to comment, please see here. Fair warning: anything supporting transgender ideology, or negative toward Brexit, or in favor of a military draft or compulsory national service, will be deleted. I am not obligated to provide a platform for views I find morally abhorrent.
No comments advocating violence against any specific identifiable individual, even jokingly.
Please be considerate -- no political or politics-tinged comments on non-political posts, and no performative cynicism (or cynicism in general).
<< Home