While I was out trail walking this afternoon I was contemplating a statement attributed to Richard Feynman, one of the twentieth century’s greatest physicists. He once said that “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you do not understand quantum mechanics.”
I realized that this statement has broader implications than he originally intended. I believe this can be applied to many areas of human knowledge, especially as it pertains to religion and politics.
I will call this the Dale doctrine.
The more fervently you believe something, the less likely it is that you fully understand it.
It is the converse of Dunning-Kroger. The more you learn and know about a topic, the more there is that you realize you have yet to learn. So the dumber you are the smarter you think you are. The smarter and more educated you are the more you know about your limitations. A D-K victim will never say ‘I don’t know” or “I was wrong”. A brilliant person like Feynman will often admit that he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and that what he knew yesterday has changed. It’s one primary difference between religion and science. And, of course between narcissism and genius.
I always found quantum mechanics to be vey interesting but find it hard to think it in relation to religion.
@WilliamCharles Thanks
He was so right and still is. We stil don't understand entanglement, the duality of light, how things can only be measured by degrees of probability. But to your point about religion and politics - unless you listen to and fully respect the entire spectrum of possibilities in these subjects, you can't fully understand them, and thus should not so fervently believe in one side of that spectrum. Now, in OUR case, we've done that with religion. We've examined that spectrum as far as we can to date (I have anyway). We're only agnostic because we don't know what created the universe.
Sadly I think the more you think you know, the more you dismiss the point of view of others.
I think its when you stop learning and cling to knowledge as a static truth. How many great thinkers fell from grace due to their inability to change their mind in the face of new information that challenged a dearly held piece of knowledge. How many people have died or tragedies caused by peoples unwillingness to see the truth before them in favor of old knowledge that inevitably was shown to be flawed or incorrect.
Check out JEB Haldane's line: The universe is queerer than you can imagine. It is queerer than you are capable of imagining.
Comprehension is not necessarily based in fact or truth!!!
Understanding is not based solely on faith or truth!!!
I would add that uncertainty is a good manipulating tool.
He was paraphrasing (plagiarizing?) the Tao Te Ching.
sounds cute, but just because you say it doesn't make it true. The "something" makes all the difference.
I fervently believe I understand addition of whole, real numbers. I am pretty sure I do understand it.
Excellent!
There is another doctrine, which I call the "Feynman was a Source of Brilliant Quotes" doctrine:
Everything that living things do can be understood in terms of the jigglings and wigglings of atoms."
This quote showed up in an article in an old "Scientific American" that just came my way, today.
So by this reasoning, there is no such thing as an expert. As an expert supposedly has more knowledge and expertise in a subject area. But if the speak intelligently on this subject, they are apt to be accused of the Dunning-Kruger effect. When does an expert become an expert and not thought one of your typical blowhards? I like Novelty's answer.
Beg to differ: There are experts, and by definition they do know more about their particular field than others, but, hopefully, they also know that there are unknown unknowns even in their area of expertise.
The folks who developed, and use serial femtosecond crystallography, are experts in the use thereof, for example, but know that they do not know everything about what this technique will help to discover.
I've no problem realising I don't understand quantum mechanics. I do understand that religion and philosophy, being similar in nature, keep opening up new ways to understand what might be reality so it's a never-ending journey. I don't mean, though, religions that think the journey, in terms of truth, is over and the rest is just waiting for their truth to come to pass.