On being wrong

[Chaos]

I´m trying to put something into words that I´ve been thinking about for some time, so please bear with me if it isn´t as clear as it might be.

I think there are at least three degrees of "wrongness" - BTW, there should be a nice pretentiously Latin-sounding technical term for "wrongness", but I can´t think of one right now, so all suggestions are welcome.

Anyway, for example you could think that 3*3 = 10. That, of course, is wrong, it´s 1 too much - well, excrement happens, anybody can make a mistake like that in the heat of the action. My professors in university do that all the time when presenting examples for certain formulas, and nobody thinks any less of them for it. (They´re economists - numbers below 1 billion are just too trivial for them )

Then, you could think that 3*3 = 333. That, of course, is also wrong - but this is an educational kind of wrong; in this case, it teaches you that "three times 3" does not mean writing three 3´s in a row. I suppose Lamarck´s ideas on the hereditary transmission of acquired traits are that kind of wrong, because debunking it teaches a lesson on the nature of heredity.

Lastly, there´s 3*3 = Giraffe. That is so wrong that it goes off the end of the scale and wraps around into metaphysical absurdity. It doesn´t teach or demonstrate anything substantial, but is pure *facepalm* material. I´ll leave it to your imagination what kind of crackpot stuff fits into this category.


Okay, that´s it. You may now call me a genius... or whatever.

 

[AdinDraco]

Some of my favourite atheist podcasters came up with the term "fractal wrongness" - wrong in total and wrong at every magnification of the argument.

 

[GreenLines]

Wrongness...

Me smoking five bowls equals a little high.
Me smoking five bowls equals getting up and exercising in a meaningful manner.
HOLY **** I CAN ****ING FLY!

AmIDoin'ItRight?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Lastly, there´s 3*3 = Giraffe. That is so wrong that it goes off the end of the scale and wraps around into metaphysical absurdity.

I think this is what is meant by "not even wrong".

 

[Lothian]

Some of my favourite atheist podcasters came up with the term "fractal wrongness" - wrong in total and wrong at every magnification of the argument.

Fritz Zwicky refered to people being spherical bastards. Bastards from which ever angle you look.

So perhaps ‘spherical wrongness’ for the giraffe.

 

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Chaos

Lastly, there´s 3*3 = Giraffe. That is so wrong that it goes off the end of the scale and wraps around into metaphysical absurdity

.

That actually made me giggle.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think this is what is meant by "not even wrong".

By the way, in software design, 3X3 = Giraffe is called a "grey hole". Unlike a black hole, in which input goes in and nothing ever comes out, a grey hole swallows up input and spits out something totally irrelevant.

FYI, a process where nothing goes in and yet somehow something comes out is called a "miracle".

 

[learner]

Is there anything redeemable with the following?

UFO*ANECDOTE=ALIENS

Im thinking Aggle-ritms "Not even wrong"

 

[Chaos]

.

That actually made me giggle.

Then don´t stand around like that - nominate it!

 

[Chaos]

Is there anything redeemable with the following?

UFO*ANECDOTE=ALIENS

Im thinking Aggle-ritms "Not even wrong"

I was thinking more along the lines of "EVENT*PARANOID=WORLD-WIDE CONSPIRACY", but yours isn´t bad, either.

Or rather, it *is* bad, but in a way that is in line with the third kind of wrong.

Mmm... I really like the sound of "Chaos´ Third Law of Wrongness".

 

[learner]

I was thinking more along the lines of "EVENT*PARANOID=WORLD-WIDE CONSPIRACY", but yours isn´t bad, either.

Or rather, it *is* bad, but in a way that is in line with the third kind of wrong.

Mmm... I really like the sound of "Chaos´ Third Law of Wrongness".

Yep, I like it. I would like to see a list of three appropriate responses to use, sort of categorise by reaction

Something like " double facepalm with a "doh" for good measure= "Chaos Third law of wrongness".

 

[H3LL]

You forgot:

3*3 = Giraffe

Right. Because we say so and you must believe it to be so or be punished.... A lot. Tell others and give us money..

 

[Lothian]

Yep, I like it. I would like to see a list of three appropriate responses to use, sort of categorise by reaction

Something like " double facepalm with a "doh" for good measure= "Chaos Third law of wrongness".

 

[learner]

 

[Cuddles]

I think there are at least three degrees of "wrongness"

You're wrong.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Anyway, for example you could think that 3*3 = 10. That, of course, is wrong, it´s 1 too much - well, excrement happens, anybody can make a mistake like that in the heat of the action. My professors in university do that all the time when presenting examples for certain formulas, and nobody thinks any less of them for it. (They´re economists - numbers below 1 billion are just too trivial for them )

Then, you could think that 3*3 = 333. That, of course, is also wrong - but this is an educational kind of wrong; in this case, it teaches you that "three times 3" does not mean writing three 3´s in a row. I suppose Lamarck´s ideas on the hereditary transmission of acquired traits are that kind of wrong, because debunking it teaches a lesson on the nature of heredity.

Lastly, there´s 3*3 = Giraffe. That is so wrong that it goes off the end of the scale and wraps around into metaphysical absurdity. It doesn´t teach or demonstrate anything substantial, but is pure *facepalm* material. I´ll leave it to your imagination what kind of crackpot stuff fits into this category.

I think there's room for at least a couple more categories there. Or possibly less. The trouble is that they're not really distinct categories, more of a continuum, and they're not necessarily mutually exclusive.

One thing I do think is missing is the question of honesty. 3*3 = 10 may be an honest mistake (as might 3*3 = 6, which caused me to miss getting full marks in an exam once), but it may also be entirely deliberate. Say you're promoting a product, and you just happen to make such an error and end up stating that the effectiveness is higher than it really is. Even if noticed and later forced to be corrected, most people won't notice the later retraction. The same applies to the other categories as well. There are all kinds of woo products around whose explanations amount to little more than 3*3 = Giraffe. As long as it's a quantum giraffe.

So I think you could use an extra fourth category which would be "Any of the first three, but done deliberately.".

 

[Mashuna]

So I think you could use an extra fourth category which would be "Any of the first three, but done deliberately.".

I think that's covered by the areas 'accountancy' and 'marketing'.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I think there are at least three degrees of "wrongness" - BTW, there should be a nice pretentiously Latin-sounding technical term for "wrongness", but I can´t think of one right now, so all suggestions are welcome.

I'm not sure about the rest of your post, but I'm pretty sure the literal Latin for 'wrongness' would be 'error'.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Hang on, I do have a type of error to add: Error of approximation.
As in. 3*3 = 10 or π = 3.14. It's wrong, but also right in an engineering sort of way.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It seems your three degrees of wrongness map quite nicely onto George Carlin's three levels of stupid people.

3*3 = 10 -> Stupid
3*3 = 333 -> Full of ****
3*3 = Giraffe -> ******* nuts!

Dave

 

[skip]

I´m trying to put something into words that I´ve been thinking about for some time, so please bear with me if it isn´t as clear as it might be.

I think there are at least three degrees of "wrongness" - BTW, there should be a nice pretentiously Latin-sounding technical term for "wrongness", but I can´t think of one right now, so all suggestions are welcome.

Anyway, for example you could think that 3*3 = 10. That, of course, is wrong, it´s 1 too much - well, excrement happens, anybody can make a mistake like that in the heat of the action. My professors in university do that all the time when presenting examples for certain formulas, and nobody thinks any less of them for it. (They´re economists - numbers below 1 billion are just too trivial for them )

Then, you could think that 3*3 = 333. That, of course, is also wrong - but this is an educational kind of wrong; in this case, it teaches you that "three times 3" does not mean writing three 3´s in a row. I suppose Lamarck´s ideas on the hereditary transmission of acquired traits are that kind of wrong, because debunking it teaches a lesson on the nature of heredity.

Lastly, there´s 3*3 = Giraffe. That is so wrong that it goes off the end of the scale and wraps around into metaphysical absurdity. It doesn´t teach or demonstrate anything substantial, but is pure *facepalm* material. I´ll leave it to your imagination what kind of crackpot stuff fits into this category.


Okay, that´s it. You may now call me a genius... or whatever.

I think what you have here is 1: a mistake. 2: ignorance. 3: wrong.

1: is you know the right answer and just miss type/speak.
2: is just not understanding the question asked.
3: is Wrong…

Wrong is wrong, it’s black and white. How you react to your wrongness is another question.


skip