Terence Tao on Nostr: One subtle difference between the scientific approach to truth and non-scientific ...

One subtle difference between the scientific approach to truth and non-scientific approaches is that the former places (or aims to place) a high value on *accuracy*, while the latter often places a high value instead on *inerrancy*. The two objectives, though superficially similar, are actually not the same, and in fact opposed to each other in some fundamental ways.

By valuing inerrancy, one seeks to claim authority through never making, or at least never admitting, an error or mistake. If there is a conflict between one's authoritative statements and external observations or events, there is thus the incentive to find a rationalization that retains the former at the expense of the latter. To quote from "The Simpsons": "Am I so out of touch? No, it is the children who are wrong".

Inerrancy is a binary concept - one is either inerrant, or one is not (and almost always, the latter is actually the case). In contrast, accuracy is a continuous concept - perfect accuracy is generally impossible outside of purely mathematical situations, and so the realistic objective is instead to achieve gradually higher, but still imperfect, levels of accuracy through better use of observations, models, and theory. This attitude is perhaps exemplified by George Box's well known dictum: "All models are wrong. Some are useful."

(1/4)