.

Jonez sez,

.

.

Thanks amigo!  (Jonez and I get on famously, offsite, in case you were interested.)

The first time I remember reading it was in a 1980's Thomas Sowell column.  He visited UCLA, or someplace like it, to discuss science with grad students, if I remember right.  He wrote that he back-and-forth'ed with them a little bit, and then asked "If you were wrong, how would you know?"

Their reaction to this was so unanimously puzzled, and so hostile, that he wrote a column about the experience.  Apparently a generation of "scientists" was being raised at that university, training to --- > design experiments to prove themselves RIGHT, as opposed to setting a hypothesis and then trying to falsify it.

Sowell is the first time I remember reading the scientific method being summed up in eight words, but I doubt it has one origin.  It's like asking, "who said 'The pleasure of doing good is the only one that will never wear out'?"

Mainstream scientists also seem to have lost their way when they drift from [methods of inquiry] into [assumptions, dogma, and philosophy].  The same doctor who wouldn't think of prescribing Oxaliplatin without rigorous experimentation behind the drug, all of a sudden will glibly speak of this or that general worldview as a scientific given.  In our regular lives we seldom remember to ask ourselves, "What if I'm wrong?  What would be the cost to me, of believing this thing that is a lie?"

....

Mojician is a defense attorney.  His life is blessed in the sense that he's naturally a seeker of Truth, at least on some level.  He can't afford lazy thinking, much less self-delusion.  "If my client WERE guilty, how would I know?"  The D.A. is only too happy to help him out with this question in court, if won't bother to do it on his own from the safety of his office.

If only we all -- starting with Jeff Clarke -- were trained in our daily lives to routinely think as though our every belief could be proven wrong at any moment.  Then we might genuinely live in reality, in harmony with the Tao.

There are times on this website when we exchange ideas with sincere intent to ask "If I'm wrong, who here can tell me about it?"  To the extent we do that, we are true scientists in spirit.

.

Yin Yang

.

The 2016 Presidential election is about as far as I have ever seen mankind get from this "If you were wrong, how would you know" attitude.   :- )  If Trump was NOT a racist pig, how would I know?  What's my self-check system?  If Hillary was NOT a grifter, how would I know?  Can I set up questions so that they actually work, so they help me, as opposed to loading the questions ahead of time to reinforce my belief?

We don't ask and usually don't want to ask.  In fact I'd be interested to see even suggested answers to those two questions.   The best I got right now is, "Ask somebody on the other side whom I respect, and see whether their case is convincing."  But that don't work good either.  Peace, brother.  Your nation is grotesquely out of harmony with the Tao this year, but that doesn't mean our own individual lives have to be that way.

The good news is...

Baseball, sports, competition, is about as close as you can see mankind get to this attitude.  "On the chessboard lies and hypocrisy do not last long.  The merciless fact, culminating in checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite."  A pitcher can be as fervent as he likes in his belief that he needs to "establish" a 97 MPH fastball, but he can't shout down his ERA when it disagrees.  It's our privilege to watch Truth, night after night, at 7:10 pm.

Respectfully,

Jeff