You’d have to demonstrate why “being wrong” would matter. If we’re wrong, but everything works as if we were right, what’s the problem?
Imagine if we one day learned that what we thought was solid matter was composed of “atoms” that were themselves mostly composed of empty space! :eek: The horrors!!!
You’ve got what I meant, and your answer brought me to thinking of the way we assume things. Our mind seems to have assumption set to default, maybe that’s the way we grasp onto life. We usually assume that what we see is what it is, things are like the way we perceive it.
When I go rampage in my mind, I once went across the thinking that we’re not living, interacting with stuffs, we’re just “floating above life”. That idea was kind of weird.
So that would be like saying if we’re all wrong in a systematically way, then “no biggie, we’re alrite”, right?
By the way, I love paradoxical sentences like that :rolleyes:.
I don’t think that would be necessarily true, because human has something called habit, that what you do everyday got imprinted onto your mind, and you would just continue to do it unless there is some intensive effort to change it, they would probably stay that way. It’s like when someone discovered time is not real, people would just move on .
Occam’s razor: it’s easier to believe the guy saying everything is wrong, is wrong, instead of everything being wrong, so the evidence would have to be pretty compelling.
Besides, I could buy that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics might eventually be supplanted by a different model of the universe that explains some things R and QM can’t. The effect on day-to-day existence will be negligible, though, unless that new theory leads to the construction of futuristicky mega-reactors that supply infinite energy, or something.
In the wonders that I find in the playground in my mind
In a world that used to be, close your eyes and follow me
Where the children laugh and the children play
And we’ll sing a song all day
- Clint Holmes
I would actually prefer an alternate reality in which that song had never been released.
Just a quick plug for the greatest album ever.
The closest cases I can think of that might be analogous are people removed from cults or cult-like situations; children kept locked up and mis-educated by abusive or crazy parents, peons in re-education camps in places like North Korea, children of fanatics of various stripes (racist, religious, political, etc.).
Not the same thing, of course, but still, a broad amount of their “knowledge” of the way things work (socially at least) will turn out to be utterly wrong.
Maybe there are autobiographies or first-person accounts by such people that you would find enlightening?
People adapt to whatever reality they are presented with.
I dunno - some people seem to resist adaptation. Flat-earthers, anyone?
The same thing happened to meeee!
Or, so I thought. It turns out that I was just mistaken.
We can’t be wrong about everything, because there would be no way to determine it, were it so. Being wrong assumes some fact of the matter which is correct against which to judge the correctness or incorrectness of other things.
Thanks for your responses, I think I got what I wondered now. But if you may care, would you mind telling me about the significance of, erm, righteousness? Because it have been quite confusing to me. When i was in school, they all taught me to always try to get right; but later in life, i saw that there are lots of things are not to be done rightly.
So, what’s the significance of that, in terms of non-scientific purposes?
Really, to be honest and cooperative, our species would’ve died out millenia ago if “I ate this last week and it did not kill me. I can probably eat it today and, again, it will not kill me,” had not been generally accurate. To claim a rule that everything we, as a species, is wrong dooms us within a few days of its implementation. It is truly nonsensical.
Yes, it is a nonsensical premise. It is possible to cogently consider: what if everything is “incomplete / energy with the illusion of form” or “holographic / simulated by the matrix”? But “wrong”? Don’t think so.
I don’t understand you here.
If by “righteousness” you instead meant “correctness”, correctness is generally useful because it is often the case that you can make better decisions with more correct, and more detailed, information. That is, we can make much better computers if we know something about the electical conductivity of metals. On the other hand, though, just because there is a better way to do things doesn’t mean all other ways are unacceptable; there are lots of cases where technically inferior outcomes are still perfectly acceptable. For example, if I am under the mistaken impression that bananas taste better than strawberries, then I’d probably stick to the bananas, which would deprive me of the joy of strawberrys but is still by no means fatal - bananas are pretty good too.
Of course, there are limits here - having the wrong idea about the effects of pavement on a rapidly falling body could lead a person to a decidedly suboptimal choice of hobbies. There’s kind of a continuum of badness here, and differing people may disagree on how to rank the consequences of various courses of action.
By the way, when you said, “lots of things are not to be done rightly”, what were you talking about? That it’s better to use inches than planck lengths when measuring the boards for your birdhouse, or that when your appendix bursts it’s a great plan to avoid medical attention in favor of prayer?
Actually, I was talking with the mindset of a non-American, a developing country’s resident who has just entered the society after graduating for about four or five months. As in my country, there are a whole load of things that just go against whatever education gave to the students. I couldn’t come up with any at the moment unfortunately.
Though apparently, it’s much different than that of America.
My uncertainty was resolved.
So we’re talking about stuff like, “Shoes should always be taken off before entering the house,” or “you should drive on the left side of the road”? Cases like that, a person will find themselves forced to either learn the new world order* quickly, or face the consequences. (Dum dum dum.)
- new world order: “In your county it should be done that way, but 'round these here parts we do it this way.”
From Sleeper:
Dr. Melik: This morning for breakfast he requested something called “wheat germ, organic honey and tiger’s milk.”
Dr. Aragon: [chuckling] Oh, yes. Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life-preserving properties.
Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or… hot fudge?
Dr. Aragon: Those were thought to be unhealthy… precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.
Dr. Melik: Incredible.
If all we’ve assumed was right is wrong, then all we’ve assumed was wrong is right. No, now that we assume that is right, it must be wrong. No…wait…
If this happens tomorrow, your post would be wrong, so everything else will be right. But that can’t be, so everything must be wrong except your post. But that can’t be, since everything, including your post, must be wrong.
::SPARKS FLY OUT OF EARS. BRAIN MELTS::