please empty your brain below

I'll think about it.
there is a dangerous gender gap between certainty and doubt. Men, well illustrated by the likes of Piers Morgan, are more likely to have a definitive opinion on something even if in reality they know nothing about it. Women on the other hand are more likely to be cautious on expressing an opinion in this situation.

The result is over confident blustering male leaders running countries/ organisations they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near.

If you look at the gender break downs in opinion polls you will see the evidence of this gender difference
"Our education system tries to make us question, hypothesise, even doubt..."

I wish I believed that was true.

Sadly, from personal experience, I think that is less true now than it has been at any time in the last 50 years.
I wish I still had the confidence of my youth, knowing what is black and what is white. Now everything seems so grey. My older partner is more inclined to see black and white.
You could add in general cognitive biases, such as the Dunning–Kruger effect - the less one knows about something, the less one has the knowledge to understand how little they know - and illusory superiority - many people think they are above average, and very few will admit they are below average. This can translate into over-confidence and excessive certainty. Probably. Perhaps. Maybe. Read the sources and decide for yourselves.
"there is a dangerous gender gap between certainty and doubt." (Grizzle)

A good example of a dodgy broad generalisation presented as fact.
'The world splits into people who think "definitely", people who think "probably" and people who think "maybe".'
Are you sure?

On education, I think the system is part of the problem. My understanding is that the curriculum is now over prescriptive. I'd like to see youngsters encouraged in critical thinking and taught about the scientific method.

dg writes: They are.
According to a sign in my local garage: "Employ teenagers. Get them while they still know it all."
I agree with DG. Alongside this, re. the recent trend to reject "experts": I think it rather odd that those people who seem to have complete "certainty" about a topic, can also be those that reject the views of real experts (i.e. based on scientific proof). An example would be the anti-vaccination lobby.
For a good website that sets out to debunk all kinds of pseudo-science and beliefs, see skeptoid.com
My opinions are generally pretty fluid. Until I'm faced with someone who's 100% certain of their belief without anything to back it up. Then I start to dig my heels in and be an obstinate git.
"Scientists are trained to rely on hard evidence rather than a hunch." Real scientists are the people who know that they will never know the "correct" answer because there isn't one.
I am (apparently) hardwired to see things in black and white. This post is a useful corrective to that. Thanks.
Judgmentalism, or rather excessive judgmentalism, is an affliction perfectly suited to social media and is therefore a complaint suffered by far too many people. Even those who are naturally not judgmental get drawn into the toxic vortex.
Agreed popartist, science can ultimately only give the most likely theory to explain something. Some theories have survived centuries of analysis and questioning, others are like phlogiston...

The contradictory studies over the years about whether certain types of food are good or bad for us highlights this, and while I believe in man made climate change, it can never be 100% proven, as all it can ever be is the most likely theory.
I certainly agree with everything said .... maybe!
If you believe Popper, science can only ever rule things out, never say for certain what the true position is. You draw a hypothesis from observation, and then test that hypothesis, and throw it away if it fails. Many beautiful hypotheses have been slain by ugly facts. What you are left with is the grand sum of things that have not yet been ruled out.

But most people don't do that all the time in everyday life - we cut corners, and use heuristics and rules-of-thumb, which are by and large good enough most of the time, but may be wrong, or biased, or misleading.
Life is too short for maybe.
Try telling a Liverpudlian it's OK to read the Sun.
Search for "List of cognitive biases" on Wikipedia and see how many ways peoples views are biased. Ultimately, everybody has a different opinion about what is real and what matters.
"Scientists are trained to rely on hard evidence rather than a hunch"
For my first 45 years they insisted Pluto was a planet. So did Madame Tussauds.
Pluto was a planet. It is not now. Pluto hasn't changed. The definition of planet has changed.
Wisecracks (for the sake of--not seriious):

There are two kinds of people: people who divide everyone into two groups, and people who don't.

Sometimes people dislike other people on sight because it is quicker to do so (confirmed by later evidence)
I only partly agree with you. There are certainly times where it makes sense to make a conclusion, if you've seen enough evidence to make it look clear. Being paralysed with doubts usually makes you less able to make effective decisions. It's important not to assume things which aren't there, but equally once the evidence points clearly one way, it's important to recognise that too.

"Be more Bayesian" is a lot less catchy though.
Definetely Maybe.

(Obviously)
"Sometimes right, sometimes wrong.. always certain" I wrote on my Twitter bio some 10+ years ago. Not original, but I think a great deal about all the things I feel I'm certain about. And I have quite often switched my position on issues over the years in the light of further evidence, on the balance of probabilities, after further consideration, etc.

I have long been criticised for taking way too long to consider all angles and evidence prior to taking a position or decision. That's my 'maybe' period, prior to arriving at my own (current) version of certainty.
And just maybe kittens are the answer ...










TridentScan | Privacy Policy