Tête-à-Tête-Tête

Something everyone should understand. Proof is not for the real world. An excellent post from Sean at Cosmic Variance pounds this point home quite well.

So well, in fact, that I have little to add. But the discussion can continue from where Sean leaves it. After we’ve established that we don’t believe anything about the real world that we can prove, and after we’ve established that science is a remarkable tool for justifying a great deal of certainty, it might still be fun to talk about things we “believe” in absence of scientific confirmation or direct everyday experience. Things we believe with an asterisk, maybe. Things we believe when the stakes of being wrong are very low, for instance. Here’s one: I believe that there exists extraterrestrial life and intelligence on very distant planets, in this or other galaxies. The notion seems probable given the size of the universe, though it’s difficult to measure the likelihood in those terms because the frequency of the development of life is a near unknown. But, if I’m wrong or if I’m right - it doesn’t really matter. And, of course, I recognize just how unjustifiable this belief is, and that I cannot have much certainty on it.

Other areas of belief that we commonly operate under that can’t be borne out with scientific or rigorous examination of the real world include ethical principles. I may be able to scientifically show that certain ethical actions will cause suffering to a certain set of people, and that other events that might justify that suffering are scientifically unlikely. But, I cannot demonstrate that it is wrong to cause unjustified suffering, though I certainly believe it quite strongly. I suppose that one could include this type of belief under the heading of “tautology”, under which Sean characterizes mathematical statements… but it’s obviously at least a different type of tautology, the premises for which we accept for very different reasons than in mathematics.

Then there is belief that stems from trusting the statements of other people. These are often justifiable by observation to a certain degree, at least in principle. But, in practice, it can sometimes be a formidable task. And lifew doesn’t usually go smoothly when we withhold provisional trust in people who “seem” trustworthy on an issue, at least on non-contentious issues, until we have verified their trustworthiness to a scientific degree of certainty.

In fact, probably our largest body of beliefs - both right ones and wrong ones - belong to that class. For better or worse.

Often, our beliefs arrive packaged in more than one of these categories. I’ve re-enacted Millikan’s oil-drop experiment personally, though only with one trial. In principle I could find the charge on an electron myself through repetitions of such experimentation. On the other hand, I have lots of good, verifiable, justifiable reasons to trust the science text-books that list the charge on the electron as approximately 1.6021892 X 10^-19 Coulombs. Finally, not being an engineer, it doesn’t matter much if I am wrong. So, I feel very comfortable with my belief about the charge of the electrons.

One point worth special attention: one should not accept a belief about the real world that is contrary to what can be shown empirically. Get rid of that tendency, and you get rid of a lot of ills in this world. That’s what I say, anyway.

So, what do you believe that you cannot justify through direct experimentation and observation?