Error

To error is to make a mistake, to fall short of the correct answer, to violate a norm or standard. In like we speak of errors of commission and errors of omission. The first means that we have actively done something that was wrong. The second means that we have not done something that we should have done, a passive error.

An active error is usually thought more severe than a passive one. It take decision, where a passive error requires only indecision (which may be mistaken an ignorance).

In science we speak of Type I and Type II errors. The first is the error of rejecting an idea that is true. When Columbus (and others) suggested that the Earth was round, those who rejected his ideas committed a Type I error. They allowed the truth to slip away because they were wed to a mistaken historical belief that the world was flat. However, in accepting that the Earth was flat, they committed a Type II error. In this case it is possible to commit a Type I and a Type II error almost simultaneously. However, in truth, these people were making two different decisions. The first was to reject an accurate theory (round Earth). They may have stopped there and maintained the score at “Truth 0, Ignorance 1”. This would mean that they simply admitted that they do not know how the world is shaped – round, flat, pyramidal, or dodecahedron. If they continued to choose the shape of the earth and maintained that it was flat, then they separately committed the Type II error – leading to a score of “Truth 0, Ignorance 2”.

In science we try to protect against making either kind of error. We would prefer to say “I do not know” rather than making either type of mistake – “Truth 0, Ignorance 0”. I suppose this means we are as committed to not making mistakes as we are to finding the truth. We would prefer to know nothing than to know anything incorrectly. This attitude would be unique to scientists. Most people what a body of truth to hold on to and guide their thinking, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. It is more important to have something than nothing. Being wrong with confidence is a more preferable situation than being confident that we do not know.

Most people exhibit this bond with error in their daily lives. The best example is every listener who calls into a radio talk show to air their opinions. These listeners are eager to demonstrate to the world that they confidently believe in dozens fo false notions about the world. It seems the more ignorant they are, the more certain they are that their opinion is true. (Hence, the insistence on first-names-only over the air.)

Perhaps one cannot learn to avoid errors without fist learning enough to be comfortable in a morass of good, bad, and null information. Given only two pieces of data or two perspectives on a question, most people are happy to pick one, any one will do. However, with much more study it becomes clear that there are many more than two positions. A complex issue with n variables would have 2n positions if n can only take the values of “true” and “false”. If n is a continuous variable, then the number of combinations of n become infinite. Even grouping these into meaningful breaks can lead to n times a dozen or a hundred variations. Faced with so many options, it becomes much easier to hold off on a decision.

The vaccine against error seems to be knowledge. Knowledge may make a person smart enough to avoid choosing the wrong position (Type II). But it also allows the freedom to choose no position, but to hold many possibilities in consideration. How many dogmas contain this as their central approach to belief?