> ”The idea behind the meta-induction is that all of our theories are fundamentally provisional and quite possibly wrong. If we can add that idea to our cognitive toolkit, we will be better able to listen with curiosity and empathy to those whose theories contradict our own.”

One thing I didn’t see addressed anywhere in the article is the dimension of wrongness through time helps you decide which of you is less wrong.

He knows timeline is a factor, cited that quote earlier:

> ”“Here’s the gist: because so many scientific theories from bygone eras have turned out to be wrong, we must assume that most of today’s theories will eventually prove incorrect as well.”

But then the miss — two people discussing “scientific” theories, if one theory is built on the shoulders of the other, probabilistically, which position is more likely to be “right” for continuing progress?

I can pass an Ideological Turing Test for a flat earth and turtles all the way down, but it’s not the greatest use of my time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_center_of_the...

Rather, what’s the next thing we need to learn, and the “right” position to learn it from?

Learning builds on learning (this is why ‘discoveries’ happen all over around the same time), so recognize where parties are on that timeline. Fine, you’re probably both degrees of wrong, but which position incorporates the most learning?

That’s the position I want to stand on to discover what’s next.

// PS. Yes, on the bleeding edge, what we know is “true” can flip back and forth. That’s just natural selection at work. Same applies, just be aware where you are on the timeline.