Cloudscape

An inclination to lie to others is correlated to an inclination to lie to oneself, that is, bias. Bias is a lie we tell ourselves in order not to hurt ourselves. If one will lie to others not to hurt them, one will also be quicker to lie to oneself in order not to hurt oneself. Both yourself and others deserve to know the truth, even if it hurts you, even if it hurts them. The only excuse for lying is to prevent someone from causing harm to others.

Unless one has either an inferiority complex or a superiority complex, the mind does not make any distinctions between the ego's pain and shared pain, and so, if one avoids others' pain one will also avoid one's own pain. One should not avoid pain, however: one should only avoid harm. Harm isn't always painful, and pain isn't always harmful.

No one should be trusted, and by far least of all ourselves. All of us, even those who believe they do not, seem too often too think that we know the truth, and this thought only keeps us from finding the truth. Yet, in the end, time and time again we find that we have to change our views, only to make the same mistake again when once again, we are certain that, this time, our view must be the right one.

No one is safe from bias, and I can only assume that I am biassed as well. Even people who believe to have an open mind appear to be subject to bias. Leonardo Da Vinci wrote that "Man's greatest deception is his own opinion," yet in a letter to Gabrielle Picollomini also wrote: "We are all exiles living within the frames of a strange painting. Those who know live grandly. The rest are insects." thus, calling anyone who did not hold his view "insects."

Bias is a monster that no one can escape from. It catches us from behind and twists its way into our brain without our knowing. Without our knowing, because we simply do not want to know. We need bias lest we'd go mad, because that is how infinitely weak we are. We are not interested in the truth. We are interested in opinions. We turn opinions into gods and worship them, because they give us safety, or the illusion of safety, safety from the unknown, which is our greatest fear, perhaps our only real fear, perhaps what all our fears come down to. If we do not know, then anything might happen, and so we pretend that we do know. But how can we possibly know that there is not something we do not know that contradicts what we thought we knew? We can only make assumptions and act on those assumptions, not because they are the truth but because it is our only choice, as those assumptions are the closest we have to the truth; it's the best we have. Because some assumptions seem to be closer to the truth than others, not because they are true. Some paths merely seem more favorable paths to follow, though we never know what lies ahead their bends.

An enlightened mind can live in assumptions, and find peace in those assumptions. That is enough to them, to assume and yet not know the truth, and feel that they do not know the truth, though that feeling racks them with uncertainty. They live on and act on those assumptions, though they always remain open to the possibility that things might be different than they would assume. They assume things because they have no choice, because they need assumptions to coordinate decisions, but ultimately are detached from actual opinions. To them, beliefs are a purely practical matter, and anything else are merely thoughts and ideas, akin to feelings. They seek the truth but do not expect to reach it, only hope, though uncertainly, to come closer to it than they have before by nuancing what they assumed earlier. They live in uncertainty yet are able to endure that uncertainty and live with it.

When a sentient can bear to live without opinions, as those opinions fall away they reveal a panorama of infinite possibilities, which were otherwise blocked by the opinions that stood in our way. This panorama may bring one wisdom, as well as imagination, but also, if one cannot bear to see its light, much, much suffering. If we cannot endure that panorama, it may drive us mad. For some of those possibilities are infinitely beautiful, some infinitely horrifying.

Once you can see the horizons of possibilities and one's sight is unobstructed by opinions, it will inspire you to fear and awe. It will shake your every thought with uncertainty as you realize that, trapped within your own thoughts, you can never know whether or not you are deluded.

A thought cannot verify itself, as it takes another thought to verify it, but that thought itself requires verification from yet another thought and so forth. You cannot escape from the precincts of your own thoughts. Your thoughts are like a maze. You can see but to the end of your corridor, but you can never see the maze as a whole. When you become aware of how you are thus trapped in your own thoughts as in a cage, you can never again trust yourself. It will shake your every thought with doubt. Your mind will tremble with mystery. The lesser questions will fill you with indecision. The average questions will fill you with doubt. The greater questions will fill you with terror. You will live in an agony that you can but manage by accepting that you are ignorant, and accepting whatever may be, even though you cannot know what it is.

One may get lost in those infinite possibilities. If one imagines every possibility one can think of, knowing that one cannot know whether it is true or not, one may become able to imagine them so vividly that they produce strong emotions in oneself; so strong, in fact, that it may no longer seems to matter whether they are likely to be true or not. The merest possibility becomes enough to make them relevant because they feel so real. This may, in turn, give rise to delusion. The irony is that through this openness, one may both achieve both wisdom and madness.

To anyone but the enlightened mind, this state of openness would be blinding, tormenting, maddening. Any that are not prepared for it tears apart with uncertainty at what lies ahead, and it drags them down into fear, apathy and indecision. And that is why we flee, flee into ignorance and bias, so that we can safely "know the truth," without having to worry about it. Only if we can be detached from truth, and do not actually need to know it, if it is something we long for but do not crave, can we safely live in the thought that we never truly know the truth, and can only guess at it and live in that guesswork, guessing that if one then happens, it will, perhaps, lead to something else — as a purely practical guideline and not as a glorified conviction. They can be led astray by errors of judgment, but not by bias. To be such an enlightened mind is to live in constant uncertainty, and to accept that uncertainty no matter how it hurts.

There have been thousands of researches into global warming, and for some reason, they all contradict one another. This may mean three things about part of these researchers: either they're careless, they're biased, they're frauds. According to recent research 2% of scientists admit having falsified data, while as much as 34% of scientists admitted having omitted data contrary to their assumptions. Since we cannot know which of the three it is, and we can hardly do our own research all by ourselves, the best thing we can do is to combine the results from all these researches and take the average from their results. It's surreal that we can trust scientists so little that we have to resort to such primitive methods, but it's the best we can do. If the disparity in these results shows us anything, then it is that we should not be too quick to trust researchers. Either how, we can best trust the results that have been replicated the most.

Look up graphs of global temperature, gather a large number of them together, study them carefully and compare them. You will find some sources that claim the last ten thousand years have been exceptionally warm, others that say the last ten thousand years have been exceptionally cool. You will find some sources claiming that the Middle Ages have been warmer than now, others that claim that it is warmer now than in the Middle Ages.

Furthermore, you will find sources that place today's temperature on graphs of the past millions of years, and you will find graphs that show only the past hundred-and-fifty years, so that in either case you cannot tell if man was the cause.

You will also find sources that compare solar activity with temperature claiming it to prove that the increase in solar activity causes the increase of temperature, but either minimize or ignore the deviations in temperature, while you will also find sources that show only temperature, while ignoring solar activity.

And finally, you will find sources comparing temperature with carbon dioxide concentrations. Some will selectively choose periods in which the increase of temperature follows the increase of carbon dioxide as a proof that carbon dioxide is the main cause of temperature increase, while other sources will selectively show periods in which the increase of carbon dioxide increases temperature, claiming this to be proof that carbon dioxide does not increase temperature at all.

If, like these scientists, you are biased, then you will choose whichever source you want to believe and ignore all others. If you are a seeker of truth, then you will search a compromise between these sources. The truth is most likely to lie somewhere in between, as it usually does.  The world is not doomed to turn into inferno, nor is everything perfectly fine.

The average, most replicated results are most likely to be correct, while the extremer, rarer results are the most likely to have been influenced by bias. This is a direct accusation of the scientists that brought these results, and I believe that they should be given any credence (or, for that matter, a license). I write this to warn anyone who does research on any field whatsoever to consult different sources, and conclude that their evidence is correct only if there are no other sources presenting evidence to the contrary. Meta-analysis is highly useful. Some meta-analyses calculate averages between the data of different studies, which likely provide the most accurate and reliable results.

Studies that combine data from different studies indicate a relatively mild increase of temperature — not high enough to portend doomsday, but high enough to be a reason for concern, in that it will have a major impact on the diversity, richness and beauty of the biosphere, and therefore as well as on the quality of our own lives.

Either how, all studies thus far have reveal that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (AGGs) are responsible for the increase of temperature, even the studies that claim the opposite. Some studies have been able to minimize the increase of temperature due to AGGs with the popular "3 watts per square meter" number, but none have come to an actually low number — 3 watts per square meter is actually quite a lot if one does the math, enough to cause an increase in global temperature of 0,9 kelvin (see article below).

That they arrived at this number, without realizing its significance, shows that it is likely to be correct, as these results are not distorted by bias towards the idea of global warming.

See also:

Holocene Extinction Event

The exaggeration of a point of view will automatically give rise to a counteraction from its opponents, rather than suppressing them. It does not help at all to exaggerate in order to convince your opponents, contrariwise, it will give them an opportunity to further contradict your point of view.

Exaggeration will make you seem less plausible, so that your arguments are more susceptible to skepticism. Once the error of your exaggeration has been uncovered, you are no longer trusted in anything you say or do. This can be dangerous, because you may in fact represent a point of view that, except for its exaggeration, may in fact have a core of truth.

Do not try to argue against the opponents of your point of view, but instead try to argue with them. Be as objective as possible, so that you may invite your objectors to do the same. Rather than trying to show how much we are right and the other is wrong, let us seek for the truth together.

Be open to all points of view, and do not cling to your own. Not only will this help you to find more insight into truth yourself and not be blinded by attachment to your own opinion, but by following another's line of thinking, you may also better be able to falsify it, and so share your own insight into the truth with others.

A common example of how exaggeration has led to increased skepticism is global warming. By announcing the end of the world, many people, including scientists, have only brought about only more controversy about whether or not global warming is effectively happening. With all the prophets around to declare doomsday, many people eventually came to see climate change as a pseudoscience.

If you have a view which is extreme and seems exaggerated because of being controversial, then when propounding it, try to remember to state that it is a mere possibility, a hypothesis, so that others may be more open to it. After all, thought experiments, even when untrue, can always be interesting.