4 ms·

This is probably true, but not very helpful. We can shrug over historical curiosities, but in a lot of cases we have to make a decision. Consider Linus Paulin

This is probably true, but not very helpful. We can shrug over historical curiosities, but in a lot of cases we have to make a decision. Consider Linus Pauling's claim that you can prevent cancer with megadoses of vitamin C. It was never widely accepted, but Pauling is a titan of science with two Nobels and he wrote books with convincing-sounding arguments, so it's tempting to think maybe this is a case where the status quo is wrong (esp. if you have cancer). I think that's the sort of thing Alexander is trying to navigate here - no matter how comfortable you get saying "I don't know", at the end of the day you need to take the vitamins or not take them.

speak_plainly 3y ago
The same argument can be turned against you, someone can wait for absolute expert certainty and die in the process due to lack of action. We all act pragmatically when making decisions and simply blindly trusting people is no way to live for a thinking and intelligent being. I was not suggesting this sort of Burdian’s ass scenario where everyone is so gripped by ignorance that they can’t act. I’m suggesting instead that ignorance is a starting point, to drop your preconceived notions and opinions or at the very least challenge them and not be afraid to come to no conclusions at all— keep everything open. To see there is gold in the common opinions of people and in the arguments of experts, that no one has a monopoly on truth. You don’t need to work yourself up to absolute certainty over the world to make a decision. You don’t need to blindly trust experts and you don’t need to be gripped by fear of uncertainty and you don’t need to be forced into action because of arguments. You really don’t need to do anything at all. There are bigger questions to ponder and a life to live that’s worth living.
- ineptech 3y ago
  I still don't see how this is relevant to the question at hand, where someone is trying to convince you of something. They either convince you or they don't; refusing to decide is equivalent to the latter. Not taking the vitamins because I'm "so gripped by ignorance that you can't act" and not taking the vitamins because I'm "not afraid to come to no conclusions at all" are not alternatives, they're the same answer!

speak_plainly 3y ago

The same argument can be turned against you, someone can wait for absolute expert certainty and die in the process due to lack of action. We all act pragmatically when making decisions and simply blindly trusting people is no way to live for a thinking and intelligent being. I was not suggesting this sort of Burdian’s ass scenario where everyone is so gripped by ignorance that they can’t act. I’m suggesting instead that ignorance is a starting point, to drop your preconceived notions and opinions or at the very least challenge them and not be afraid to come to no conclusions at all— keep everything open. To see there is gold in the common opinions of people and in the arguments of experts, that no one has a monopoly on truth. You don’t need to work yourself up to absolute certainty over the world to make a decision. You don’t need to blindly trust experts and you don’t need to be gripped by fear of uncertainty and you don’t need to be forced into action because of arguments. You really don’t need to do anything at all. There are bigger questions to ponder and a life to live that’s worth living.

ineptech 3y ago
I still don't see how this is relevant to the question at hand, where someone is trying to convince you of something. They either convince you or they don't; refusing to decide is equivalent to the latter. Not taking the vitamins because I'm "so gripped by ignorance that you can't act" and not taking the vitamins because I'm "not afraid to come to no conclusions at all" are not alternatives, they're the same answer!