Mapping the Reality

Does a sword fit in your throat?

Rosling’s scientific nature shines through in his advocacy for facts over feelings or biases when determining the efficacy of vaccines, school completion rates, or other objective truths. To illustrate how our instincts can mislead us, he famously concludes his presentations by swallowing a bayonet—an act many would instinctively deem impossible, yet he demonstrates it is not.

This reminds me of Eliezer Yudkowsky’s observation about rational thinkers and their disbelief in goblins lurking in closets. The essence isn’t rooted in outdated beliefs or irrationality. Instead, it’s simply that they’ve opened their closets and found no goblins.

The takeaway: our beliefs should not be dictated by what feels right; they must instead reflect the actual state of the world.

You Have Unknown Unknowns Too

Factfulness, published posthumously, encapsulates Rosling's final passion during his struggle with pancreatic cancer. In it, he reiterates why we consistently misjudge basic global trends—like the percentage of the population living in poverty, the reasons behind population growth, and the rate of girls completing school.

Donald Rumsfeld articulated this concept well, distinguishing between 'known unknowns'—things we acknowledge we don’t know—and 'unknown unknowns'—those we are unaware of that could challenge our perceived truths.

The deeper issue arises when we not only lack knowledge but are also ignorant of our ignorance. There may exist significant unknown unknowns that, if revealed, could reshape our beliefs entirely.

Unless one possesses divine knowledge, it’s reasonable to accept that we all harbor unknowns—beliefs we wrongly assume to be true due to unrecognized information.

Honesty in Reflection

When faced with relevant unknown unknowns, it’s vital to contemplate this pivotal question:

What information am I currently unaware of that, if revealed, would lead me to reconsider my beliefs?

For instance, if you believe that astrological positions affect your romantic decisions, you should reflect on what unknown information would lead you to conclude that such influences are less likely than the fundamental laws of physics being incorrect.

Philosophers of science remind us that the scientific method’s strength lies in its ability to let reality respond to our hypotheses. The process of rigorous testing enables nature to challenge our conclusions, ultimately prompting us to discard flawed assumptions.

Thus, we might ask:

What evidence would convince me to abandon my current beliefs?

A Chilling Reality

Here’s the poignant excerpt from Rosling—a dying advocate for improvement—that deserves to be broadcasted far and wide:

“In a tragic instance of flawed critical thinking, highly educated and caring parents opt against vaccinations that protect their children from deadly diseases. I value critical thinking and skepticism, but only when they align with the evidence.”

If you find yourself skeptical about the measles vaccine, ask yourself, “What evidence would persuade me to change my mind?” If your answer is that no evidence could ever alter your stance, then you are stepping outside the realm of evidence-based reasoning, contradicting the very critical thinking that brought you here.

To maintain consistency in your skepticism about science, you might as well instruct your surgeon to skip handwashing during your next operation—this choice could very well lead to fatal consequences.

The implication is clear: if you disregard established scientific principles, you risk not only your own life but also the lives of your children. Vaccine hesitancy has become a significant threat to global health.

This reality is sobering, isn’t it?

Revealing Intentions

We are all imperfect beings, and while there’s no obligation to have a comprehensive list of beliefs ready for scrutiny, if your aim is to seek truth rather than deceive, then you must be open to the idea:

What type of evidence would make me reconsider my stance?

If you genuinely seek the truth and aim to be helpful rather than misleading, you must acknowledge your own unknown unknowns and conclude:

“If certain facts turn out to exist that I currently overlook, I will need to revise my beliefs regarding [the relevant issue].”

Recognizing when we fall into flawed reasoning is crucial, and we must use this awareness to adjust our perceptions of our surroundings.

Consulting Facts Over Instinct

In the grand scheme of existence, you might ponder the meaning of life or question why I discussed searching for goblins or testing the limits of sword swallowing.

Did Rosling’s demonstration alter your perspective on human capabilities?

Researchers are increasingly uncovering evidence that we are naturally inclined to deceive ourselves. As Richard Feynman, the esteemed physicist and Nobel laureate, wisely stated:

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”

Thus, you must be willing to measure your intuitions against the data and honestly recognize that your feelings regarding the plausibility of sword swallowing—and perhaps your views on vaccinations—may be misleading.

If truth is your priority and you value honesty over distortion, you must be prepared to identify unknown unknowns that could lead you to alter your beliefs.

There’s More to Discover

For those intrigued by discussions involving goblins, bayonets, and more, feel free to subscribe to my blog for a weekly infusion of thought-provoking ideas.