I feel like the theme of the 2020s is epistemology.

For those who aren't aware, epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of knowledge, as in,

- What does it mean to say you "know" something?
- What does it mean for something to be "truth"?
- What is "real"? How do you "know" that?
- What is the difference between "belief" and "knowledge"?
- What's the best way to go about finding more of this "knowledge" stuff, whatever it is?
- What are the limits of knowledge?

For various reasons, these are questions that everyone has begun to confront on a day-to-day basis. It's no longer a theoretical exercise for weird nerds to ponder about; we have to deal with epistemology at an extremely practical level now, and few people are equipped for it.

I had an exchange on Discord with someone in the astronomy club that I'm a part of that made me realize a common epistemological pitfall that a lot of people fall into nowadays (including myself, at times).

I posted a video about some research into dark matter (look back in my feed), and this guy was like "Neat idea, but dark matter can't interact with normal matter, so it'll never work."

When pressed, he said it was because the YouTubers he watches say that.

/1

Ignoring the fact that his statement indicates he did not actually *watch* the video, and that a YouTube video is not a reliable source of truth, there are a couple of bigger issues at play here.

One is a fundamental misunderstanding of how knowledge works. It's not a binary thing; knowing something is not like flipping a switch. There are levels to it, gradations.

The other is that knowledge is not a thing you *have* it's a thing you *use*.

/2

What do I mean by this? Knowledge is an active thing, not a passive thing. How knowledgeable you are on a subject is not directly related to how much information about the subject that you have absorbed. Reading a book or an article or watching a video on a topic does not mean you actually *know* anything about that topic. Reciting facts is not knowledge, or more precisely, it's an infinitesimal amount of knowledge.

/3

How well you know something is related to your ability *use* that knowledge.

To use the dark matter example, an astrophysicist doesn't know more about dark matter than me because they have read more books or taken more classes than me. It's not because they can recite more facts about it.

They know more because they can actually *use* that information to do meaningful things. They can design and execute experiments. Interpret data. Make predictions. Come up with explanations for things.

/4

Nowadays, it's possible for one to read an article (or watch a video, or read the Wikipedia article) about something like dark matter and _feel_ like one knows something about the topic. It makes sense to you. You can recite facts, and maybe even form an opinion and argue with other laypeople about it.

But that's *all* you can do with that level of knowledge. The experts can do so much more, to the point that you don't even have the knowledge to really grasp _how_ much more.

/5

@malcircuit

I’m not an expert … but sometimes I can ask questions after learning about cool stuff!

Of course the question may not be interesting to experts but sometimes they answer.

https://ruby.social/@stepheneb/115112696824245370

Now I’m curious about what it means when event horizons overlap. Is any information exchanged when they overlap. And once they overlap can they also detach later??

Questions are much more fun than arguing!

Stephen Bannasch (316 ppm) (@[email protected])

@[email protected] If two large black holes were orbiting around each other closely would there be a point where their event horizons overlapped before they got so close they combined. I’m assuming that when two black holes get close they orbit each other faster and faster as they get closer before they combine into one.

Ruby.social
@stepheneb Yes, exactly. People get so attached to their beliefs. They are more afraid of being wrong than learning something new that they stop asking questions, stop admitting their own ignorance, stop being curious. It's kind of sad, in my view.

@malcircuit

Being able to quickly be wrong in the most interesting and useful way is soo cool!

https://ruby.social/@stepheneb/109887737387949575

I wish more folks knew how useful being wrong can be.

Stephen Bannasch (316 ppm) (@[email protected])

@[email protected] Something that might be adjacent ... when I am learning something complex and new I jump in as fast as I can with both a model I know is naive and with just the right amount of confidence to break it quickly and usefully. Deeper in I find myself needing to reason using multiple and conflicting models. It's a strange combination of being both extremely confident and very skeptical at the same time. I'm confident I'm both wrong and good at finding out as fast as possible.

Ruby.social
@malcircuit @stepheneb The Scout Mindset by Julia Galef describes how people are attach their identities to their beliefs, making it harder to update beliefs. She presents a remedy that I try to live by, which is to attach "I pride myself on updating my beliefs" to your identity.