There is no worse pseudointellectual than a Very Intellectual and Scientifically Enlightened Person, that much is generally understood outside of scientistic circles. But I have to say, the so-called "doers" (see: most right-wing public figures) are just as aggravating to me.
-
-
Yes, but worse: even insightful people often don't know *why* they're insightful, so their pet theories are often BS. E.g. I have *very* strong intuitions about people - they can be extremely accurate, but belief in my theories about people has always let me down.
-
Once I learned that I have no idea why something I do works, even if it works, I stopped believing much in my own theories. That has really helped, though it makes epistemic doubt as intellectual cop-out a real danger to be mindful of. Some things are more true than others.
-
epistemic doubt shall be the whole of the law
-
Ironically, it can develop into its own kind of myopic certitude.
-
(Though on average "I know nothing," does less damage than "I know for certain.")
-
I'm generally comfortable with "I have such and such suspicion" or "this seems to be happening". That is the bedrock of a scientific attitude (that's not to say all scientists actually have this attitude in practice).
-
I'm even okay with a lot more certainty than that, when it's built on something. It's certainty that survives legitimate challenges that bothers me.
-
I'm willing to go there if it serves a function, but paradoxically the higher the feeling of certainty behind a claim the more skeptical one should be. In this case, by skepticism I mean openness to the possibility of being misled by emotional conviction, not outright dismissal.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.