Tag Archives: thinking

Science and stupidity

If you haven’t been paying attention to the discoveries of the James Webb telescope, you are missing out on an opportunity to really understand what Science is all about. Scientists start with a hypothesis then they look for reasons for that hypothesis to be wrong. That’s happening right now.

“…results from the James Webb Space Telescope have hinted at galaxies so early and so massive that they are in tension with our understanding of the formation of structure in the universe. Various explanations have been proposed that may alleviate this tension. But now a new study from the Cosmic Dawn Center suggests an effect which has never before been studied at such early epochs, indicating that the galaxies may be even more massive.” (Source)

These ‘too massive’ galaxies do not jive with current hypothesis, and they challenge what scientists think they know about the origins of the universe. These discoveries are forcing our greatest scientific minds to question their own research and beliefs.

Meanwhile, we still have people believing that the world is flat and that for some unknown reason NASA is nothing more than an instrument of the government used to keep us in the dark about our flat world… As if there is some mastermind ploy to keep us ‘in the dark’ because [input ridiculous theory here].

Oh, and as for these ‘look at the horizon, it’s flat just like the earth’ believers? Any time a scientist course corrects and changes their hypothesis, or admits that they have new insights and information, is proof that they don’t know what they are talking about. This process of learning more and changing trajectories isn’t seen as an incredibly brilliant approach to new discoveries. Instead it’s seen as a weakness in thinking. But they don’t see the weaknesses of their own ideas, and the inadequacies of their ‘evidence’.

But this isn’t just about flat-earthers. It’s about unscientific and conspiracy thinking that seems to be growing. Scepticism in science is being confused with scepticism of scientific thinking. Terms like ‘sheeple’ are used to describe people who believe in science, in NASA, and in things like research at CERN. With CERN there is even a conspiracy theory that it is the cause of the Mandela Effect. The basis for this? Nothing.

It’s sad that there is such an anti-intellectual movement happening right now. It seems that people have access to as much misinformation as they do information, and for a small but every growing number of people the misinformation, the un-scientific ‘evidence’ is more compelling than what our best and brightest scientists think… And somehow a guy making videos based on conjecture and stupidity in his basement gets to have equal or more airtime than the brightest minds on our globe, who are making amazing new discoveries about the universe.

Clarity of mind

I spent 5 weeks taking pain killers that clouded my mind. Now I’m on the mend, and I’ve only been taking the meds at night since last Saturday. I have had a few conversations in the past couple days that lasted more than a couple minutes and I could actually stick with the conversation.

I look back at those fully medicated weeks and realize I barely remember them. What I do remember is feeling slowly better. Feeling gradually less pain. But it wasn’t fun making the choice between pain and a cloudy mind.

Now I can write without many edits. I don’t get lost for words. I remember the point I’m trying to make. It feels good. I’m not 100% yet, but I’m feeling so much better, so much clearer.

My goal now is not to push too hard. To continue to heal, and to get completely off the meds. The hardest part is not rushing, not doing too much. A younger me would have struggled with the slow pace, and probably headed straight into a setback, then started suffering all over again. I can’t guarantee that won’t happen, but I can do my part by taking things slow.

A younger, dumber me would probably still be trying to muscle through the pain. I guess clarity comes with age.

The Thoughtful Ones

“We pay too much attention to the most confident voices- and too little attention to the most thoughtful ones.

Certainty is not a sign of credibility.

Speaking assertively is not a substitute for thinking deeply.

It’s better to learn from complex thinkers than smooth talkers.” ~ Adam Grant

Of course confident voices can also be credible voices. One can speak assertively and still think deeply. A complex thinker can also be a smooth talker. This isn’t a dichotomous contrast but rather a recognition of why we should pay attention to a confident voice. Or, when to seek out the opinion of someone not as in the limelight or as extraverted, yet thinks deeply.

There are too many confident people in the world that are loud but not worth listening to. This is the group to be worried about: The shallow thinkers that are vocal and garner more attention than they deserve. Seek out the deep thinkers and pay attention to them no matter their inclination to be assertive and heard.

Lack of integration not information

We have access to more information than we could ever use. The sum of knowledge available to us is far beyond anyone’s comprehension. Creativity and ingenuity do not come from more knowledge but rather two kinds of integration:

1. Integration of understanding.

There is a difference between understanding how an ocean wave works, and knowing when to catch a wave when surfing or body surfing. There is a difference between studying covalent bonds and understanding how two chemicals will interact.

2. Integration of fields of study.

A mathematician who sees poetry in a series or pattern of numbers. An engineer who sees an ant nest and wonders what they can learn about airflow in buildings.

In this day and age, lack of information is seldom the problem, but lack of integration is.

For schools, integration means getting out of subject silos, and thinking about cross-curricular projects. STEM and STEAM education, and trying to solve hard problems without a single correct answer. Integration of curriculum, inquiry learning, iterations, and learning through failure by hitting roadblocks that require out-of-the-box thinking and solutions.

Integration comes from challenging experiences that require base knowledge in more than one field. So, while knowledge and information are necessary, information is not sufficient without integration of ideas from other subjects and fields. The learning really begins where subjects and concepts intersect… and where learning across different fields is meaningfully integrated.

The examined life

“The unexamined life is not worth living” is a famous dictum supposedly uttered by Socrates at his trial for impiety and corrupting youth, for which he was subsequently sentenced to death. The dictum is recorded in Plato’s Apology (38a5–6) as ho dè anexétastos bíos ou biōtòs anthrṓpōi (ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ). Wikipedia

Taking away the life or death scenario, and focusing more on the pursuit of wisdom or understanding of ourselves, why is an examined life so much more meaningful, and worth living for?

‘What is the examined life?’

I don’t think the answer is navel gazing and the pursuit of knowledge. It’s not just about analyzing the wave, it’s about getting on the surfboard. It’s not about understanding the nutritional value of food, it’s about enjoying the taste, and even finding joy in the preparation of a meal. It’s not just about the absorption of information but the joy of learning something new. And it’s not just about psychology or understanding the behaviour of others, it’s about being in a loving relationship and the companionship of family and friends.

An examined life is as much about the living of a good life as it is about the examination. Because examination itself does not create value unless the examination leads to living a life worth living.

An examined life isn’t just the life of an examiner. It’s living a life that when examined is viewed with a desire to give, to share, to contribute, and/or to strive to be accomplished at something. The examined life is one of action not just thought, of participation not just observation. This is what makes it worth living.

Sitting in silence

This afternoon I was emptying the dryer and folding my clothes in silence. This would normally not be anything worth noting but it occurred to me that I really don’t sit in silence much anymore. Cutting the grass, doing the dishes, cooking, doing the laundry, I almost always do these and other chores while listening to a book or a podcast. I fill the quiet with voices coming from my phone/headphones.

Folding my laundry today made me realize that I miss the quiet of thinking without a distraction. Just about the only other time I do this is while writing, and maybe that’s why this thought came to me, and why I’m sharing it now.

Who has time to intentionally sit in silence? Who makes that time for themselves? I think I need to find opportunities to do this, to ‘unplug’ from external thoughts and not just sit in, but be in silence. I wonder if the ever-present smartphone has made some people afraid of the silence of being alone?

Sitting Under a Large Tree

Sitting under a large tree, staring up at the branches, I can see that wind is a fickle thing. Some leaves and branches lay motionless, while others sway back and forth, while still others dance. The tree doesn’t resist. A larger gust of wind picks up, more of the tree moves this time, it undulates, absorbing the larger force, then settles down again.

Sitting under a large tree, I can imagine my ancestors doing the same. The kind of tree might have varied, but the experience would have been almost the same for hundreds and even thousands of years.

Sitting under a large tree can provide shade, shelter, even food. But more than anything, sitting under a tree provides time for quiet contemplation.

The wind blows, and leaves and branches dance again.

On bias… continued

I wrote about measuring bias yesterday. This comment by Joe Truss (my uncle) adds a lot to the conversation:

To add to the importance of Dave’s comment: a critical aspect of bias is the effect our local environment and context have on our opinions about what is happening in the world at large. People are very poor natural statisticians. When confronted with two similar events we begin to think ‘this is how it is for everyone’. An even deeper ‘local’ event is when we are upset or depressed, the entire world seems to be in line with our feelings. When we feel bad, the world seems bad. 

See: https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen?language=en

https://www.gapminder.org
Take the awareness test on this link. ;-)}

Take the awareness test. I started guessing correctly not because I expected the result I was guessing, but because I was expecting the result to surprise me. We really aren’t good at estimating statistics and we make so much of the very little data we do know… and this shapes our bias… poorly.

Measuring bias

It’s not easy to see your own biases, and it’s really easy to see others. This in itself is a bias we all hold; This prevents us from measuring bias without bias.

And so, when we hold an ideology, it’s very hard for that ideology to be changed from the outside. A simple conversation won’t do it. It often takes a profound experience. The difference in scale needs to be large, or our own biases prevent us from making the leap.

It’s hard to measure how much our own biases change the way we look at the world, but if you think you see the world as it really is… well then it’s time to look deeply at that bias.

Inner voices

Have you ever wondered about that inner voice you hear? Who is speaking? And who is the voice speaking to?

Is the voice lifting you up or pushing you down?

Is the voice helping you make decisions or making your decisions difficult?

Is the voice convincing you to take action or has it convinced you not to?

There are times the voice listens to your body, telling you of hunger, thirst, or need of sleep. There are other times when it listens to your mind, telling you to question, to learn, to problem solve. These are times when the inner voice makes sense, it is a collaborator, an ally. There is congruence.

And then there are times it negotiates with you, telling you reasons you should or should not do something… it is indecisive or in conflict with your instincts. At these moments I wonder who is talking to who? When the scales tips and the decision is made, whose decision was it? Where does the incongruence come from?

Is there a path we can travel where we live in full congruence with ourselves? Can we find a path where our inner voice always acts in our best interest? Where we do not argue with ourselves? Is this a path worth seeking, or are we indecisive by nature and require internal conflict?

What does your inner voice think when it hears this question: Can our internal voice be harmonious?

Is that a realistic goal or an unrealistic expectation?