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 :o)

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. :boxedin:

[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 *********** 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".:mgduh

:bwall :words:

:tinfoil :scarper:

[learner]

:mgduh

:bwall :words:

:tinfoil :scarper:


:D

[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 :o)

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 :o)

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. :boxedin:


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

[wollery]

So we're looking at a sliding scale of wrongness, from "1 too many" to "Giraffe"

Should it be a logarithmic scale?

[Trent Wray]

3*3=10 ........ a stud who went the extra mile
3*3=333 ....... a stud who could write a guide on doing it right
3*3=girraffe .. a stud who made a regrettable choice

:)

[Philosaur]

How's this for a 5 minute error taxonomy:

Accidental error - a mistake of action, not cognition (a typo)

Incidental error - a mistake arising out of unfamiliarity with a subject (newbie mistake)

Conceptual error - a mistake arising out of a misunderstanding of a subject (green belt mistake; you know just enough to hurt yourself)

Perverse error - a mistake arising out of willful misconception or ignorance of a subject (woo)

Absurd error - a fundamental mismatch between question and answer (3 * 3 = giraffe)

[Evilgiraffe]

If anyone wants me, I'll be in my box, being wrong.... as usual.

:boxedin:

ETA.... and evil. Muahahahahaha!

[I Ratant]

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
.
Never be wring, or wreng, or whatever that word is.
Helps a lot.

[GreyICE]

I steal from the master, Wolfgang Pauli: "This isn't right. It's not even wrong."

3x3 = Giraffe isn't even wrong.

Or another, which I'm blanking on:

"People thought the earth was flat. They were wrong. People thought the world was spherical. They were wrong too. But if you think they were equally wrong, then you're wronger than both combined."

[Chaos]

You're wrong.

Sorry, couldn't resist.:)



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.".

I think instead we should consider multiple axes of being wrong.

On the X axis, we have the how - error in execution, error in methodology, error in the wiring of the brain. On the Y axis we have intent - i.e. are you actually trying to be right?

[NoZed Avenger]

Wrong, wronger, wrongest.

And Marquieed.

[Brian-M]

3*3 = 10 ... CORRECT (Using a base-9 numbering system)
3*3 = 333 ... CORRECT (Using a non-positional numbering system)
3*3 = Giraffe ... CORRECT (Using a pictorial numbering system where an image of a giraffe is used to represent the number nine)

:D

ETA: Actually, let's use a cat to represent the number 3 in the pictorial numbering system, so now we have cat*cat=giraffe.

[Hawk one]

You're wrong.

Sorry, couldn't resist.:)

[snip]

Considering you concluded with putting a fourth category, that would actually make him right, because he said "at least three" which of course opens up for the possibility of four (or even more) categories.

Hey, if you can't resist, then why should I? ;)

[Andrew Wiggin]

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".

I would have thought a hole from which something completely irrelevant came out, at least in forum terms, would be a sort of pinky brownish beige. Seriously though, it amuses me that there's a work for such things.

A

[fishbob]

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

I thought I was wrong once.
Turns out, I wasn't.







That had to go in here somewhere . . .

[PixyMisa]

Isaac Asimov had something to say on the subject (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm).

[scratchy]

The mistaken wrong arnt allways wrong, just not as precise as the next person demands, given he has the exact answer. Can be quite irritating sometimes.
Person A asks person B: So how many people did we have today?
B: Well, id say about twenty.
C: Heard that, you are wrong! I counted, there were twenty one!
B smacks C in the face.

[I Ratant]

I would have thought a hole from which something completely irrelevant came out, at least in forum terms, would be a sort of pinky brownish beige. Seriously though, it amuses me that there's a work for such things.

A
.
And surrounded by the lushest lips, in an angelic face... but I digress..

[Philosaur]

3*3 = 10 ... CORRECT (Using a base-9 numbering system)
3*3 = 333 ... CORRECT (Using a non-positional numbering system)
3*3 = Giraffe ... CORRECT (Using a pictorial numbering system where an image of a giraffe is used to represent the number nine)

:D

ETA: Actually, let's use a cat to represent the number 3 in the pictorial numbering system, so now we have cat*cat=giraffe.

Um, wouldn't your text be wrong?

:catface: * :catface: = :llama:

Even this is wrong, because I couldn't find a giraffe image. but what *kind* of wrong?

[Brian-M]

Um, wouldn't your text be wrong?

:catface: * :catface: = :llama:


Not if I'm using the words for the animals to represent the image of the animals that represent the number. :hypnotize

[Philosaur]

Not if I'm using the words for the animals to represent the image of the animals that represent the number. :hypnotize

But then your *equation* would be wrong in the same way that "the numeral three plus the numeral five equals the numeral eight" is wrong.

Right? :P

[Brian-M]

Right? :P

I'm not sure... I lost track. :)

[theneedtoknow]

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

All praise baby jesus.

I think Philosaur summed up the degrees of wrongness best, bust missed probably the most important one, "This is so wrong, yet feels so right".I think I have the most experience with that one.

[dropzone]

I'm a skeptic and I've been wrong in all the degrees, from Archimedes to Einstein.

OTOH, I have also probably been right to a similar extent. The difference between scientists and fundamentalists is that weasel word, "probably." I'm not convinced absolutely about anything, including the most basic scientific principles. Probably? Sure. But as an engineer the most absolute I can come up with for the general audience is that the star we call The Sun will "rise" (given that the Earth's rotation will result in it appearing above the horizon) at about 6:30 AM tomorrow.

Okay, I'm too lazy to look up the absolute numbers. Anybody who ignores them can drown in the incoming tide that was potentially predicted 200 years ago, for all I care.