# Seeking Truth - My Religion %%TODO: I hate this title - but it's a place holder for now%% thinking as a science. We may disagree because we have been influenced by different ideas and experiences. We can learn via argument and criticizing ideas I really like the shape this idea is taking. And I think the key thing to call out is that your pursuit of truth—your worldview or ideology—shouldn’t be about how often you’re _right_. That’s the wrong target. Instead, it should be about how you’re moving _closer_ to truth, to a better understanding of reality. When you try to hide from criticism—when you make things vague or slippery just so you can’t be proven wrong—you actually damage your own understanding. Every time you do that, you’re trading clarity for comfort, and it gets in the way of learning. So one of the principles I’m arriving at is: **can you make yourself clear enough to be criticized?** Because that criticism is rocket fuel—it accelerates your progress. You also have to acknowledge that you’re biased. We all are. Our brains are wired to preserve the feeling of being right. But that instinct pulls us _away_ from truth. So you have to call it out in yourself: “Yes, I want to be right. That’s human. But the goal isn’t to _feel_ right—it’s to _be_ less wrong over time.” Nobody wants to walk around feeling like they don’t know what they’re talking about. But we don’t have direct access to ultimate truth. Once you admit that, it becomes easier to say, “Of course I’m going to get things wrong. I’m working with limited evidence, limited time, limited tools.” And once you accept that, you realize: waiting to speak until your ideas are flawless is not only a waste of time—it’s impossible. Even if perfect arguments were possible (they’re not), the time it would take to construct them would be better spent _sharing_ your ideas early and getting feedback. Otherwise, you risk spending years refining a theory only to realize you missed the mainline of criticism entirely. So the path to stronger arguments is through _error_. That’s the paradox. This leads to the purpose of debate. If your aim is to understand the world—not to win—then you’re not trying to protect your ego. You’re saying, “Here’s the best I’ve got right now,” and putting it out there. Then the question becomes: what are the best methods for uncovering truth? And here’s something possibly controversial: sometimes a _straw man_ can be useful—not the malicious kind, but a genuine attempt to clarify. If you don’t quite understand someone’s position, you can say, “Okay, let me try to reframe what I think you’re saying, even if I get it wrong,” and then let them correct you. That’s not about stumping them—it’s about sharpening the discussion. Sure, if the straw man is terrible, it’s a waste of time. But in cases where people can’t find common ground, it can be a helpful place to start. Ultimately, all of this comes back to a simple but deep question: **are we trying to seek truth, or are we trying to be right?** They’re fundamentally different. One is about confirmation, authority, and justification. The other is about fallibility, openness, and explanation. One wants to _arrive_ at truth and be done. The other accepts that truth is a process—that understanding evolves, and always will. And once you internalize that, it doesn’t just change how you think. It changes how you _see_. --- Date: 20250420 Links to: Tags: References: * []()