TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

What if I’m wrong? (2023)

209 点作者 jrlocke超过 1 年前

20 条评论

ggm超过 1 年前
I&#x27;ve grown used to being corrected, to the point that it&#x27;s a pleasant surprise to be told I might be right.<p>What I notice more and more, is the &quot;you&#x27;re wrong&quot; is used to buttress opinion masquerading as fact. If you preface &quot;I think that..&quot; to asserts it doesn&#x27;t stop the &quot;you&#x27;re wrong&quot; but it at least puts the discussion into the realms of conjecture about things, including facts, rather than simple asserts of facts which are often not as factual as they seem.<p>I also notice that argument by analogy is being over-used. Because you want to compare your large single CPU to a multi CPU doesn&#x27;t mean it actually is a Bull compared to a herd of chickens. Or that cat-herding is actually much harder than it looks: you need the right kind of cream. Wait.. that analogy might not work here..
评论 #39352526 未加载
评论 #39356090 未加载
评论 #39354578 未加载
评论 #39354243 未加载
评论 #39351895 未加载
评论 #39351804 未加载
评论 #39353723 未加载
评论 #39363874 未加载
评论 #39352827 未加载
delichon超过 1 年前
Ptolemy was wrong. But he was wrong with a large pile of actual measurements of celestial bodies, and a falsifiable theory. That made him wrong in the positive sense of wrong in the phrase &quot;not even wrong&quot;, where wrong is just the first step of the ladder.<p>I wish I could say the same about Freud, but that ladder is distressingly horizontal.
评论 #39352239 未加载
评论 #39352073 未加载
评论 #39352579 未加载
评论 #39351943 未加载
评论 #39352388 未加载
atdt超过 1 年前
Wonderful piece. Dennett knows how to write. And he captures the pleasure and privilege of Hacker News with this felicitous phrase:<p>&gt; Distributed understanding is a real phenomenon, but you have to get yourself into a community of communicators that can effectively summon the relevant expertise.
评论 #39353769 未加载
评论 #39353405 未加载
FrustratedMonky超过 1 年前
I actually got a little suckered in, and thought this might be Dennett opening up to being wrong and giving some new account of what he might now think is correct.<p>Especially after all the debates on free will with Sapolsky.<p>Instead it ended up being backhanded self complement, more like, &quot;a lot of other great people agree with me, so maybe I&#x27;m wrong, but probably not&quot;.<p>&quot;Descartes’s theory of everything is, even in hindsight, remarkably coherent and persuasive. It is hard to imagine a different equally coherent and equally false theory! He was wrong, and so of course I may well be wrong, but enough other thinkers I respect have come to see things my way that when I ask myself, “What if we are wrong?” I can keep this skeptical murmur safely simmering on a back burner.&quot;
评论 #39352067 未加载
评论 #39352072 未加载
评论 #39355855 未加载
mtlmtlmtlmtl超过 1 年前
Daniel Dennett is still the only modern philosopher I know of that is capable of explaining his ideas to non-philosophers without it devolving into meaningless(to me) babble, or even worse, an endless cataloguing of all the possible views one could hold on something, along with their names.
评论 #39354060 未加载
gwd超过 1 年前
I think the more important question is, &quot;How would I <i>know</i> if I were wrong?&quot; As a thinking Christian, and I&#x27;ve thought very carefully on what kind of evidence could be presented to me to show that Christianity was wrong; I&#x27;d be interested in what kind of evidence Dennet would accept to show him that his atheism was wrong.
评论 #39353494 未加载
评论 #39353495 未加载
评论 #39353442 未加载
评论 #39353482 未加载
评论 #39353429 未加载
评论 #39353431 未加载
评论 #39353691 未加载
评论 #39353761 未加载
评论 #39358141 未加载
评论 #39353412 未加载
评论 #39353400 未加载
评论 #39355958 未加载
CornCobs超过 1 年前
&gt; They will eventually discover that they’re wrong, and we will have yet further examples of evolution’s devious paths. In my terminology, their dogged search for skyhooks will uncover heretofore unimagined cranes. And precisely because their conclusions will be the opposite of what they hoped to discover, we will take them seriously.<p>An important part of being able to truly ask oneself if they are wrong is the humility to seriously consider an alternative. The author&#x27;s treating of ID research as a foregone conclusion, even with his acknowledgment that we could be wrong in the next paragraph, seems rather ironic. Isn&#x27;t it this kind of hubris that he is precisely calling out?
评论 #39353020 未加载
评论 #39353033 未加载
评论 #39355943 未加载
ChrisMarshallNY超过 1 年前
I live by a life philosophy that tells me to own my defects and shortcomings, and promptly admit them.<p>I remember being told once, &quot;Congratulations! It&#x27;s <i>your</i> fault!&quot;. The thinking is that, if it&#x27;s some[one|thing] else&#x27;s fault, there&#x27;s nothing I can do to change it, but if it&#x27;s <i>my</i> fault, then I have the power to amend the situation.<p>In every conflict in my life; even when I am clearly in the right, and the other party is clearly in the wrong, I <i>always</i> have something to address, on my end. Sometimes, I may even need to apologize for it; which can really suck.<p>In my coding, I have found that writing unit tests <i>always</i> finds bugs. Happened to me yesterday, in fact. Since the test ran through 35,000 records, and took almost an hour, it was painful. I can&#x27;t remember the last time that I wrote unit tests that didn&#x27;t find bugs in the CuT.<p>But I am now satisfied that the code I wrote is top-shelf.
评论 #39355929 未加载
DiscourseFan超过 1 年前
So, everyone in the world knows what a circle is, or has a basic idea of a circle: you won&#x27;t find a person who doesn&#x27;t recognize one, right? But, there are no circles in the world, empirically--every circle you&#x27;ve ever thought you&#x27;ve seen is actually an ellipse, even the earth itself is oblong, just like all the stars and planetary bodies.<p>Well, would we call it a <i>mistake</i> if someone described what, empirically, was an ellipse, as a circle? The question itself &quot;What if I&#x27;m wrong?&quot; is flawed: we are always already wrong. But it is the <i>wrongness</i> which makes the world, for us; and to the extent our creations are false, to that same extent they are true. So why concern yourself with questions of true or false, right or wrong, <i>Good</i> and <i>Evil</i>? Go out, create your <i>own</i> truth, make the world anew...leave behind all this worrying over nothing.
评论 #39355206 未加载
评论 #39353513 未加载
nonrandomstring超过 1 年前
Did anyone else read &quot;Minds I&quot;? I loved that book, and come to think of it the &#x27;soul searching&#x27; comments always had that note of humble fallibilism in there.
评论 #39352891 未加载
neilv超过 1 年前
&gt; <i>This inspired me to adopt the same strategy with my books: I invite Tufts students to help me write my books by sharing the penultimate draft with them in a seminar, where they are all encouraged to point out errors, challenge arguments, demand more clarity, and in general complain about anything that strikes them as amiss.</i><p>Two professors from whom I was fortunate to learn, who did something like this in classes:<p>* Marvin Minsky (MIT) -- While he was researching <i>The Emotion Machine</i>, class sessions would often be him talking about whatever he&#x27;d been working on earlier that day, and related thoughts from his formidable knowledge, and people would ask questions and share information. For example, one day, general anesthesia came up, and a physician&#x2F;surgeon who was sitting in on class that day added to that (something about, in some cases, the patient is conscious but doesn&#x27;t remember after, which was a memorable idea to hear).<p>* Peter Wegner (Brown U.) -- He was working on theory of interactive models of computation (e.g., whether interacting objects were reducible to Turing Machines), and some days would put up drafts of a paper on a projector, for class discussion around them. IIRC, he&#x27;d first read sections of the paper, and then ask questions of the class around that. Of course, we learned more than he did, but perhaps we were also a helpful rubber duck on some ideas he was thinking through.<p>Also, drafts of textbooks are a thing: Leslie Kaelbling (then Brown U.) arranged to use draft copies of Norvig &amp; Russell&#x27;s intro AI book, which were two comb-bound volumes with unfinished bits, and IIRC we could feed back comments.<p>Which reminds me of the time I was taking classes at the community college, and the author of one of the textbooks was in the department (though not my instructor), so I wrote down some comments as I worked though the book. The author seemed kind and delighted to be getting book feedback from a student, even though I assume now that my comments weren&#x27;t of any help.
评论 #39353613 未加载
评论 #39353396 未加载
codeulike超过 1 年前
&quot;I&#x27;ve Been Thinking&quot; is the best possible name for a philosopher&#x27;s autobiography
评论 #39355905 未加载
评论 #39352463 未加载
wavemode超过 1 年前
&gt; Take courage and set out to write up the Great Discovery; if after many hours of red- hot thinking and writing you discover to your dismay a fatal flaw ... all is not lost. Go back to the first paragraph and write something along the lines of “It is tempting to think that ...”<p>I love this.<p>I go through similar experiences with software engineering. I notice some area of the field that appears overly complicated (build systems, CI&#x2F;CD, version control, web frameworks, so on and so on) and start thinking to myself &quot;Why all the complexity? Surely we could just-&quot; and then I&#x27;m down a rabbit hole for weeks. The usual end result being I learn a lot of new things and discover for myself what all the complexity was for.<p>But hey, occasionally maybe I really do come up with a Next Big Thing.
tsunamifury超过 1 年前
I applaud the author and thinker for taking on this timely and hard topic.<p>I struggle with this question in the same way I think as the author, but in technology we are afforded less time to ponder if we are wrong and more time to test if we are wrong.<p>However the author points out, even in testing as he does with his students, we can be wrong in a fundamental way that all the branches of my iterations stem from the wrong source.<p>So I’m left with: who thinks I’m wrong and why does that matter.<p>I’m finding that outside of reddit, very very few people will tell me im wrong and this is deeply frustrating. Really only my wife who is tired of my pondering fully engages in what might be wrong with what I’m working on and I’m thankful for that.<p>But I wish more people would help me be “constructively wrong” which means they understand the goal but want to correct the approach.<p>Most online merely want to point out irrelevant wrongness for sport.
评论 #39354458 未加载
svat超过 1 年前
What is his life&#x27;s work &#x2F; major insight that he&#x27;s referring to here?<p>&gt; <i>I had found— and partly invented— a prodigious explanation- device that reliably devoured difficulties, day after day. The insights (if that is what they were) that I had struggled so hard to capture in my dissertation and my first book have matured and multiplied, generating answers to questions, solutions to problems, rebuttals to objections, and— most important— suggestions for further questions to ask with gratifying consilience. I just turn the crank and out they pour, falling into place like the last pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. Perhaps my whole perspective is a colossal mistake— some of my critics think so— and perhaps its abundant fruits are chimeras.</i>
评论 #39352157 未加载
评论 #39352179 未加载
评论 #39352252 未加载
评论 #39355888 未加载
a_square_peg超过 1 年前
I never got to ask this as an interview question, but I always thought it would be interesting to ask - &#x27;if you were wrong, would you want to know?&#x27; Not on any particular topic but in general. When I asked this in casual settings, I thought it was illuminating that no one gave a simple &#x27;yes&#x27; as an answer.
评论 #39355254 未加载
评论 #39354558 未加载
enonimal超过 1 年前
&gt; Take courage and set out to write up the Great Discovery; if after many hours of red- hot thinking and writing you discover to your dismay a fatal flaw . . . all is not lost. Go back to the first paragraph and write something along the lines of “It is tempting to think that . . . ”<p>XD
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK超过 1 年前
Idiots never ask themselves that question, that&#x27;s why they usually win the argument.
评论 #39358719 未加载
thomastjeffery超过 1 年前
The most useful reason to know things is not so that you can stand idly correct: it is so that the next &quot;maybe&quot; you invent can be <i>unique</i>.
JonChesterfield超过 1 年前
&gt; if this novelty is worth understanding, somebody I trust will soon explain it to me in terms I can readily digest<p>That&#x27;s unsound. It prevents learning anything which is not widely known and simply explained.<p>I don&#x27;t know the author. All the context I have is the article up to that point where I lost interest. However yes, if all you try to learn are the trivial things everyone agrees on, for some circular definition of &quot;wrong&quot;, you won&#x27;t be wrong.<p>Bad strategy. High value are things few people know. Highest value are things people know to be true that are not so.
评论 #39353952 未加载
评论 #39352491 未加载
评论 #39352242 未加载
评论 #39355843 未加载