Paul Bloom's third lecture in the series is on Freud.
An interesting point is on a concept ellaborated on by Karl Popper of 'Falsifiability'. He asserts that 'a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable'.
Readers of Muttblog will know this as something Stuart often moans about. People make a claim that can't be proved wrong. In fact, they often make a claim and then no matter what happens claim that the outcome proves that they are right.
Eliezer Yudkowsky links to a site that attempts to correct this (called 'Wrong Tomorrow', ) by collecting 'experts' predictions which can at a later stage be verified or proved wrong. In this way you build a track record up. It also means that in formulating your opinion, you have to say... if X then I am wrong. Then if X happens, you are forced to change your mind.
So, the stimulus plan will be a success if X. Jacob Zuma will be a good president of South Africa if Y. I will have succeeded in this project if Q.
Making something falsifiable makes it interesting, because it opens the possiblity up of actually adding to knowledge. So... All swans are white. One black swan proves you wrong.
Another bit reiterated Dan Gilbert's argument in 'Stumbling on Happiness'. Often we don't actually know why we do what we do, or what the real reason is we believe what we believe. We create reasons to support our gut responses that we don't even understand.
That doesn't make your gut response right any more than it makes your rationalisation just a mask, but it does open the question up to really get to understand your emotional responses to things and your rational reasoning for them.
I imagine the truth requires both.
No comments:
Post a Comment