
Ask HN: How to tell what's true from false or right or wrong? - shire
As I&#x27;m growing up I&#x27;m learning more and more about life and our universe a lot of what we learn is of coursed based on experiences.<p>Sometimes when people tell me things I ask myself is that really true?. For example, a friend and I had a discussion earlier about islam and he is muslim and he told me the way the big bang started was predicted when Islam first came out and actually a lot of scientific stuff was predicted in Islam&#x27;s first stages how can that be possible?.<p>My point is are we suppose to just believe what we are told? How do you regard something as creditable? A lot of the times When I&#x27;m learning new knowledge I&#x27;m always focusing on the source credibility is that wrong of me to do? I take everything with a grain of salt but if I&#x27;m studying biology and is a book by let say Richard Dawkings I would credit the information accurate and not distrust it. Is that wrong?<p>How do you figure out the truth from false knowledge?
======
apu
Many people here are writing about various techniques/books that talk about
science, i.e., for distinguishing scientific truths from non-scientific
falsehoods, but as a scientist myself (well ok, computer "scientist"), I think
in some sense we give "science" too much credit. There are things we consider
"truths" in science which are actually only a veneer on "beliefs as of today"
\-- i.e., not that far removed from even such non-scientific things as e.g.
"religion".

This is very abstract, but more concretely, what I mean is that it helps to
read about the philosophy/history of science. The canonical recommendation
here is Thomas Kuhn's _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ [1], but I
also strongly recommend watching James Burke's _Connections_ tv series [2] and
then watching or reading his _The Day the Universe Changed_ [3] to understand
how our entire conception of "reality" or "truth" is so strongly determined by
the technology of the time.

Finally, there are lots of "truths" in fields where this is no scientific
basis to fall-back on -- politics, art, etc. For these, you have to seek out
and find the best elucidators of each field (usually, but not always, books).

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Rev...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_%28TV_series%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_%28TV_series%29)

[3]

~~~
collyw
There was a really good TED talk (which got banned), challenging the implicit
assumptions by science.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE)

~~~
glenra
The talk didn't get "banned", it was merely disavowed by the TED organization,
which interprets their mandate "ideas worth spreading" as excluding blatant
pseudoscience such as the idea of "morphic resonance".

~~~
collyw
Effectively banned from the site.

Sorry but the scientific community needs to address a number of points that
are raised. It may be psudoscience, but there are a number of things that
can't be explained by science, and in these cases, looking for answers is
better than ignoring the issue. In the talk he doesn't say any of these things
are true, but seems to be exploring the possibility. I am sure when it was
first suggested that the earth was round, that it sounded equally ridiculous.

~~~
glenra
> Effectively banned from the site

The TED organization decides which talks are worth "featuring". The two
"banned" talks are actually far MORE prominent than all the talks they decide
to simply not feature at all. TED is still hosting them, merely on a different
page where they encourage discussion of the issues raised. You can easily find
that page and engage the discussion there if you like.

> Sorry but the scientific community needs to address a number of points that
> are raised.

Does it? Says who? More to the point, does _TED_ need to address those points,
or is it okay for _TED_ to say "no, this is just silly" until there's an
actual _there_ there in the form of, say, replicable results?

I would be careful to distinguish results that merely _aren 't_ explained by
science from those that _can 't_ be. If they really _can 't_ be explained by
"science", what's the point in addressing them? Why bother? That the earth was
round _could_ be explained by science. Did you mean to say instead that these
points "run counter to conventional wisdom"?

If you think you have a case to make, why not just make it? What SPECIFIC
"points" do you think he raises that "need to be addressed"?

Are you willing to support his views on, say, telepathy - including dog
telepathy? Do you think his "ten dogmas" _accurately_ reflect what scientific
types believe? Some seemed pretty strawmannish to me. (It's easy to make
yourself seem insightful if you are allowed to invent and caricature imaginary
opposing views that you can then rail against.)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake)

------
arethuza
I can strongly recommend Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" from _The Demon-
Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark_ :

[http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/01/03/baloney-
de...](http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-
kit-carl-sagan/)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-
Haunted_World](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World)

~~~
shire
Perfect! thanks

~~~
arethuza
Also:

 _Why People Believe Weird Things_ \-
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Things](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Things)

 _Bad Science_ \-
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_%28book%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_%28book%29)

------
lutusp
> My point is are we suppose to just believe what we are told?

Not if you're science-literate. Remember that a scientist assumes an idea
unaccompanied by evidence is most likely false, while a nonscientist assumes
the opposite.

Let's say someone hears a claim about Bigfoot. If he's a scientist, he will
assume Bigfoot is a myth until hard evidence appears. But a nonscientist (a
person technically known as an _airhead_ ) believes that Bigfoot is real until
he is proven not to exist. But consider the burden of evidence -- for the
airhead to be dissuaded from belief in Bigfoot, something called _proof of a
negative_ would be required, which is an impossible evidentiary burden. After
all, Bigfoot could be hiding under some rock on a faraway planet, which means
he can't ever be conclusively disproven.

Science is an extremely productive outlook, and the modern world is largely
defined by science and the scientific outlook. One of the reasons is that
scientists don't waste time carrying other people's burdens of evidence, like
a belief in Bigfoot.

> How do you regard something as creditable?

Solid, repeated, empirical evidence, created by multiple disinterested
observers. Everything else is unsubstantiated rumor.

> How do you figure out the truth from false knowledge?

A skeptical outlook and an understanding of how science works.

[http://arachnoid.com/building_science](http://arachnoid.com/building_science)

------
spindritf
In science, it's very simple (though not necessarily easy), a theory needs to
have predictive power. Important caveat: predictive power about the future.

This way you can even test a hypothesis you don't even understand. Just get a
prediction out of someone who does and see if it checks out without being
otherwise obvious. Again, obvious beforehand, not afterwards. There are a
couple of heavy tomes you can read about it, a couple of common tricks to side
step the test (ad hoc hypotheses) but in principle that's it.

For example, you test the theory or relativity every time you use GPS. It
usually works.

Everything else is a matter of taste. Do you like consistency? Logical
structure? Elegance? Authority? Peer review? You can make up whatever test you
like. There's bayesian approach, you can try to consciously correct for your
biases... but it's hard to beat the scientific method.

~~~
Shish2k
Another slight caveat -- as well as predicting things which should work, it
should also predict what _won 't_ work. If your theory is that your medicine
cures an illness, it's not enough for people who take it to get better -
people in the control group who _don 't_ take it must _not_ get better.

------
madaxe_again
Scientific Method, Socratic Discourses. Debate everything until you're blue in
the face, examine every precept or "given truth", question every fundament.

True from false you can divine with the above, but only within the constraints
of what we know and can know - this is the epistemological route.

Right from wrong is an entirely different topic, and is an ethical and moral
question. A good starting point for considering the very definition of "right"
and "wrong" might be to read or read about Kant, Plato, and Aristotle - but
ultimately what's "right" or "wrong" derives from the very subjective societal
norms of whatever cultural context you find yourself within.

There's essentially nothing which is considered universally right, or
universally wrong - you get to figure this one out for yourself.

------
rskar
Figuring out the truths from falsehoods is an art. Sorry, but there you have
it. The so-called "Scientific Method" is just mechanics and formalities of
what generally convinces people about certain claims.

apu's recommended reading and viewings (Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions", and Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed") are excellent
starting points in your personal explorations into this.

Another worthwhile reading comes from Issac Asimov, "The Relativity of Wrong"
([http://hermiene.net/essays-
trans/relativity_of_wrong.html](http://hermiene.net/essays-
trans/relativity_of_wrong.html) ). I think he may have been an inspiration to
the notion of science as an enterprise at being "less wrong", per this
redacted snippet: John Campbell [Asimov's editor], who specialized in
irritating me [...] told me that all theories are proven wrong in time. My
answer to him was, "John, when people thought the Earth was flat, they were
wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if
you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking
the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are
absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally
and equally wrong. However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right
and wrong are fuzzy concepts...

------
Broken_Hippo
Your curiosity is admirable. Please keep it. I wish more people would openly
question things in this manner.

To answer your questions: No, you should not believe everything you are told.
You should look at how credible sources are. I err with science, and for me,
religion that discredits science doesn't work. I do watch a lot of conspiracy
theory things... so many sources are full of absolute crap, but it is fun and
I find strings or theories, but little proof or truth. I'm afraid that if I
didn't use my brain, I'd wind up believing all sorts of things. Things I know
are untrue. Keep your eyes open, keep the healthy questioning and skeptisicm.

My other advice is to remember that the truth can change. Science disproves
itself as we discover new things. And this is fine and expected - as long as
your views change with new facts, you'll be fine. My big example is always
religion - If any god or gods give me unrefutable truth that they exist, I'll
believe in whichever god or gods gave me proof. Otherwise, I'll trust in
science, keep some distrust for the sensational small-study 'breakthroughs'
and keep on my own path.

------
adrianwaj
I suggest holding two realities in your mind: that it is both true and false.
Try to see if the muslim fellow can also hold two possibilities. Also worth
having a 4*4 matrix: true/false for me/him in any one moment. But the
true/false can also be flawed: absolute truth is considered a spiritual
experience.

Judaism also has a cosmology. What is truer: Islam or Judaism.. or something
else... like the experience itself that it describes?

Ironically, maybe being able to hold these possibilities of truth actually
takes you to that experience of absolute truth.. where complete opposites can
be both completely true and completely false.

------
rthomas6
2 kinds of knowledge:

1\. The kind that you can use to make testable predictions.

2\. The kind that you can't use to make testable predictions.

Kind 1 is easy to verify. Just test the testable prediction. Done. That's
really all science is.

Kind 2... people have different opinions on. Some people say that Kind 2 is
useless and one should reject all of it. Some other people hold Kind 2 close
to their heart and find rich meaning in it. With Kind 2, though, there's no
good way to tell what's right.

------
ivank
The study of this is called
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)

~~~
k_sze
Exactly. This is a problem of epistemology. There is a less fancy name for it:
Theory of Knowledge.

For starters, bear these two sentences in mind whenever you find yourself
asking whether something is true or false:

1\. Knowledge is _justified_ _true_ _belief_. 2\. "How do you know?"

Number 1 tells you upfront that knowledge is belief. But it's not just _any_
kind of belief. It is belief that you can _justify_ to be _true_. Note how we
don't say "knowledge is truth" (because knowledge only holds for as long as it
cannot be demonstrated to be false). There are, of course, different kinds of
knowledge, which have different levels of justification. E.g. pure mathematics
is a kind of knowledge with the highest level of justification because
conjectures can be proven or disproven and there is no dispute (unless you
make a mistake in your proof, but then peer review will catch your mistake,
unless the peers have been drinking...)

Number 2 is just an easier formulation of number 1. You use this question
recursively until you start to feel you are being absurd or silly. E.g. Tommy
told me he saw a police shoot Michael Brown. How do I know this is true?
Because Tommy is trustworthy. How do I know Tommy is trustworthy? Because
Tommy is my friend and would never lie to me. How do I know Tommy would never
lie to me? Because I have known him for X years and everything he has said in
the past have turned out to be largely true. Etc. ad nauseum.

If you happen to know anybody doing or having done the IB diploma, you can ask
them about ToK (Theory of Knowledge), because ToK is a required subject in the
IB diploma. They may put on a smug smile for a few seconds and start talking.
(I did IB diploma myself.) In fact you'll give them good practice to get
better at ToK.

------
cog_ant
Read Julian Baginni _The Ego Trick_. He examines the notion that our sense of
self is false. The feeling that 'I' exist is wrong. Throughout life we are
constantly re-adjusting ourselves. Our worldview changes. What is right or
wrong changes depending on where we are standing, and when we are standing
there.

------
ekr
What you need to do is to read the Less Wrong sequences.
([http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences](http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences))

That will help with clearing some things up.

------
ricknew
Bertrand Russell goes into this question in some depth.
[http://www.ditext.com/russell/russell.html](http://www.ditext.com/russell/russell.html)

------
vishalchandra
1\. There are no absolute universal truths.

2\. There are only at best absolute local truths i.e. truths which are truths
only in a limited local subsystem of the entire possible universe. The moment
you consider a larger enclosing system of which the local subsystem is only a
part then the truth may cease to be.

3\. One should be comfortable believing that contradicting truths can co-
exist. It is the limitation of the human mind to resolve the contradictions.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Interestingly, you state #1 as an absolute universal truth. In this, I think
that your position is self-contradictory.

There is a reality that exists. Statements are true or false to the degree
that they conform or fail to conform to the reality that exists.

The problem is _knowing_ to what degree a statement conforms to the truth of
what exists...

~~~
yetihehe
I've seen nice summary of #1 in one sentence: All generalizations are wrong,
including this one.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Yes, but instead of being self-contradictory, now it's special pleading.

------
cog_ant
∞

------
jdimov
You got a lot of "scientific" answers.

I want to give you different answer, which almost everyone will disagree with.

My answer is this - you ALWAYS know what is right or wrong, true or false. You
don't need anyone to tell you this. And you certainly don't need "evidence".
Evidence is for people who lack imagination. Leaders create their own
evidence.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
I don't believe you. People don't always know right and wrong. True and false
is easier with some practice and the right mind. What is right in one
situation can be very wrong in another. Most people's sense of right and wrong
are taught by community - I'd give you more merit if right and wrong were
indeed universal concepts.

'Creating evidence'... This makes me cringe and brings images of politicians
to mind. I believe some pretty odd things sometimes (singularity movment.. 30
years, i'm waiting) but if there is no actual evidence, or if I don't see
results in some way, or if it conflicts with science and things with
evidence... I'm not likely to believe.

~~~
jdimov
You're just bitter. Life is beautiful. And you have far more power over
"reality" than you give yourself credit for. But you value your comfort and
your perception of safety far more than you value your power, so you will
never be powerful.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Heh. Yeah, I'm a little bitter. I don't see life as all bad, but I know there
is a lot of suffering in it. Not all life is beautiful - just like most people
are non-evil, but a few of them, they are.

And dude. My own comfort levels? I moved across an ocean and married a man
that practices chaos magick (I wound up reading some stuff, and am starting to
practice. There was no pressure). I already had Discordian philosophies. I am
lucky, and privelidged enough to have a level of freedom beyond what I thought
I wanted... and I wouldn't give it up. But you are right. I value my own
happiness above power, I'd only take the power over being happy temporarily.
Poking at things behind the scenes is just as much fun, even if there is no
real power in it.

