在无限的无知中我们人人平等
在无限的无知中我们人人平等
新思想的大门永远敞开
Brett：
归纳法说预测是科学存在的主要原因，但实际上解释才是。
你想要对正在发生的事情有一个解释，即使你不一定能确定地预测接下来会发生什么。
事实上，以某种确定性知道接下来会发生什么可能会让人泄气。未知可能远比确定知道明天会带来什么更有趣。
Naval：
这让我们想到了一个相关观点：科学永远不会定论。我们应该始终自由地进行新的创造和新的推测。
你永远不知道最好的想法会从哪里来。你必须认真对待每一个真诚提出的想法。
那种”科学已成定论”或”科学已封闭”的想法是无稽之谈。它暗示我们都能就提出新理论的过程达成一致。
但新理论是通过创造力和推测产生的。新思想的大门永远向有新想法的人敞开，让他们进来做出贡献。
Brett：
正如波普尔所说：“在无限的无知中，我们人人平等。”
即使有人声称拥有专业知识——他们可能有正当的理由——但仍有无限多他们不知道的事情可能会影响他们知道的事情。
一个在任何领域都不是专家的学生，仍然可以提出一个挑战最伟大专家基础的想法。
就像孩子一样，专家对一大堆事情也是无知的，可能会犯错。缺乏那种精细知识的人仍然可以指出这些错误并提出更好的想法。
We’re All Equal in Our Infinite Ignorance
The door is always open for new ideas
Brett:
Induction says that prediction is the main reason science exists, but it’s really explanation.
You want an explanation of what’s going on, even if you can’t necessarily predict with any certainty what’s going to happen next.
In fact, knowing what’s going to happen next with some degree of certainty can be deflating. The unknown can be far more fun than absolute certitude about what tomorrow will bring.
Naval:
This brings us to the related point that science is never settled. We should always be free to have new creativity and new conjecture.
You never know where the best ideas are going to come from. You have to take every idea that’s made in good faith seriously.
This idea that “the science is settled” or “the science is closed” is nonsense. It implies that we can all agree on the process with which we come up with new theories.
But new theories come through creativity and conjecture. The door is always open for new people with new ideas to come in and do that.
Brett:
As Popper said, “In our infinite ignorance we are all equal.”
Even if someone claims expertise—and they might have a valid claim—there’s an infinite number of things they don’t know that could affect the things they do know.
The student who’s not expert in anything can still come up with an idea that can challenge the foundations of the greatest expert.
Like the child, the expert is ignorant about a whole bunch of things and could have errors. Someone who lacks that fine-tuned knowledge can still point out those errors and present a better idea.