“Do you hear what I hear?”
“Do you see what I see?”
I see that if an assertion does not fit all of the [verified] data, it’s wrong.
Next idea, next assertion please. Get a clue; move on.
I see that religious models do not fit the verified data; they’re wrong. Let’s get a clue; let’s move on.
I see that one-sided economic and political models that do not fit all of the verified data are wrong.
Psychological models (particularly monisms, even approximate) that do not fit all of the verified data are wrong.
Models proposed by scientists that do not fit all of the verified data are wrong.
A model proposed by a layman about an every day occurrence/event/problem that does not fit all of the data is wrong.
A model proposed by a philosopher that does not fit all of the data is wrong.
A metaphysics that does not fit all of the data is not a theory of everything (is not a metaphysics) and is therefore wrong.
A so-called theory of everything that does not fit all of the data is wrong and ironic at the same time.
Next idea, please. Get a clue! Move on!
I’d rather be right than be more intelligent and wrong like so many highly intelligent people before me. Their problems were many – including their big egos, their lack of emotional self-control, and their pathetic lack of intellectual honesty. Someone needs to write the true history of ideas as a history of self-deception (and deception of their followers) by bright egomaniacs who lacked proper emotional self-control (whose emotions rule their reason).
If a person’s reason ruled his emotions, even once and a while, and he was unusually intellectually honest and sufficiently humble about his achievements, and focused on fitting all of the data he had to a model, provided he had enough quality data, and he were bright enough to see when he is on the wrong path, well, that person might just discover a few truths along the way. As for the other type – expect little truth from them.
Which ideas are part of the history of self-deception? – mostly philosophical, psychological, economic and religious ideas, but the above applies somewhat even to those who created new scientific ideas.
Is this so hard to understand? Maybe it needs to be set to music to be heard and then eventually understood. Music videos could illustrate it better. Motion pictures. Anything to get the message out to those who do not read and understand it.
In all endeavors, the scientific method of fitting data ever more accurately and precisely to models is the best way to avoid error, delusion, and fanaticism.