Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?

thedecisionlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 74 posts

Re: Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?

#21

Post by testbjjl »

wanderingmind wrote: post #7
Waterluvian wrote: post #4

Everyone should be required to sign up for a year of being followed around by an inquisitive child who will pockmark the landscape of their knowledge with exploratory boreholes. I have multiple environment and science degrees and feel generally knowledgeable and my oldest will put on his best Feynman face and be entirely unsatisfied when I offer and explain “Rayleigh scattering.” I love it. I love it so much. I love…

100 percent can relate on the relentless curiosity of a child. I was dumbfounded yesterday by this question -> if cars go at high speed, and breaks stop it suddenly, how come the friction doesn't generate enough heat to start a spark?

Brake pads?

Re: Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?

#22

Post by testbjjl »

Razengan wrote: post #16
wanderingmind wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 percent can relate on the relentless curiosity of a child. I was dumbfounded yesterday by this question -> if cars go at high speed, and breaks stop it suddenly, how come the friction doesn't generate enough heat to start a spark?

It's ironic that AI today may give curious kids answers quicker if not better than asking humans or searching the web did.

May being the operative word, for now anyway for certain.

Re: Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?

#23

Post by ColdStream »

anamax wrote: post #17
wanderingmind wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 percent can relate on the relentless curiosity of a child. I was dumbfounded yesterday by this question -> if cars go at high speed, and breaks stop it suddenly, how come the friction doesn't generate enough heat to start a spark?

Car brakes can get hot enough to start a fire (wood, paper, maybe even gasoline - see race cars) but a spark is a hot piece of material that is large enough so it can keep its heat for a while. Brakes generate very fine dust that cools off almost immediately.

The concentration of energy is vital. Sort of like how if you fire a gun it will only push the person back a few centimeters but that energy condensed into a very small spot and fly through a car.

Re: Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?

#24

Post by rramadass »

Animats wrote: post #6

"Science is prediction, not explanation" - Hoyle. There needs to be more "prediction depth", vs. explanatory depth. If you can explain something but can't predict what's going to happen, you don't have an understanding of it sufficient for engineering. This is why economics is not much of a science. Not enough predictive power.

You have to be careful with the "Explanation(Understanding) vs. Prediction" dichotomy. They are related but Explanations should always have precedence since they are fundamental to creating a Theory in the first place that then can make Predictions.

David Deutsch actually argues for Understanding/Explanations over Predictions.

Here is a nice Reddit thread on this; David Deutsch argues that explanation, not prediction, is the primary goal of science. How widely accepted is this view? - https://old.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/comments/1trw2n...

David Deutsch: A New Way To Explain Explanation - (TED talk) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folTvNDL08A and (Transcript of the previous) https://medium.com/dorothyknows/david-deutsch-a-new-way-to-e...

Here he points out that "good explanations" should be "hard-to-vary". What does he mean by this?

It means that "a good explanation" cannot be arbitrarily modified without unraveling its internal coherent structure or contradicting the very facts that it seeks to explain. The evidence and the internal logic that holds up the explanation are tightly coupled together as one organic whole thing.

Re: Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?

#25

Post by Terr_ »

> Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?

To repurpose a quote originally about believing in good-versus-evil:

> Lord Vetinari gave [Vimes] a friendly smile.

> “Of course, of course,” he said. “You have to believe that, I appreciate. Otherwise you’d go quite mad. Otherwise you’d think you’re standing on a feather-thin bridge over the vaults of Hell. Otherwise existence would be a dark agony and the only hope would be that there is no life after death. I quite understand.” He looked at his desk, and sighed.

-- Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett

Re: Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?

#27

Post by ColdStream »

Balinares wrote: post #26

I suspect mainly because you don't and can't understand the world ; you understand whatever simplified model of the world is inside your head and by default it's real unobvious just how simplified exactly.

Pretty much. We just make the assumption that we can hold a model of the world in out head.

But like that old axiom about models goes 'All models are wrong, but some are useful.'

The taoists would argue that you shouldn't try to define everything because it will not help out after a certain point.

Re: Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?

#28

Post by Terr_ »

My_Name wrote: post #15
wanderingmind wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 percent can relate on the relentless curiosity of a child. I was dumbfounded yesterday by this question -> if cars go at high speed, and breaks stop it suddenly, how come the friction doesn't generate enough heat to start a spark?

They generate enough energy to, I mean have you seen racing brake discs? It's just that the energy is spread out over a larger area (brake discs/pads as opposed to a tiny spark) that is also constantly being cooled by air movement, so the energy in any one point is not enough to ignite any of the materials involved. It's why they used to put asbestos in the brake pads, but they now use ceramics and other heat-resista…

I'd approach it by looking at the definition of a "spark", and the things we can change to avoid tripping that definition.

For a visual spark, it has to be something thrown off which is the right size, material, and a temperature to glow visibly to the human eye under normal light.

For a spark that starts a fire, it has to be something thrown off which has a certain temperature by the time it lands or travels to some other surface.

In both cases, hot very fine particles will cool quickly just by hitting the ambient air. If the underlying surface (e.g. brake disk) gets glowy-hot, we wouldn't call that a spark--it's too big, and fixed.

Re: Why do we think we understand the world more than we actually do?

#29

Post by kstenerud »

A toilet's operation wouldn't be too hard to explain to an alien who has enough science for interstellar travel. A siphon mechanism works the same way for them as for us (although they'd likely wonder at how primitive we are to be using such a wasteful mechanism).
Post reply on HN