As a side remark, lots of things are common sense but rigorously proving them can be hard. For instance, in geometry, it is common sense that a simple closed curve in the plane (i.e. a loop which starts and ends at the same point without intersecting itself) separates the plane into two disjoint regions. It’s called Jordan cuve theorem and it is a tough cookie.

Anyway, I side-tracked again. You also reminded me of the Socratic dictum: One thing I know; that I know nothing (ΕΝ ΟΙΔΑ ΟΤΙ ΟΥΔΕΝ ΟΙΔΑ).

It’s common sense really: when you don’t know something, you don’t know that you don’t know it. We all fall prey to this.

Wonderful! I was not aware that this had been studied in the field of psychology, but it is definitely something I observe daily. I would like to learn more about the phenomenon, so any references/pointers would be appreciated.

This is how religious falsities often perpetuate.

And talking about religion, the above also reminds me of a similar phenomenon which (lots of) religious people possess. Namely, because they think that god is behind them and because they feel that they have the right religion and, by extension, the right morality, they often judge others in domains unrelated to religion. They dictate how others should behave and they feel justified for this. I think it’s called self-righteousness.

Of course there is no *psychological* difference to Tony Blair believing he knows something about the world and acting on it and someone we consider more rational — so I don’t think we can blame him for that.

There’s a famous effect in psychology that states that when you’re incompetent in some area of knowledge you are also incompetent to evaluate your incompetence and hence think yourself competent. This is how religious falsities often perpetuate. We all have this cognitive bias whether we’re religious or not but some forms of religious thought are an extreme example.

Not at all, and you know it, of course. The crazy thing is that the majority of people (enlightened academics included) cannot understand that our perception (and by this I mean anything we can see, think, understand) is very limited.

It is limited for the reasons you point out but also because each one of us sees the world through a filter, the filter of his/her “knowledge/cognition”.

It is POSSIBLE to train this filter and (greatly) enlarge the things we can “see”.

A (good) musician can hear things I can’t. I am convinced that a good composer can “see” music; much more deeply than I can (I am an amateur classical guitarist).

A (good) film director can perceive a very complicated scene before it even gets realized.

A (good) mathematician can see lots of things in the world that are utterly invisible to the untrained mind. With mathematics we enlarge (and I can assure anyone it is the case!) the way we see and understand the world; and we can do so without even solving equations (contrary to the popular belief that a mathematician deals with symbols and equations).

So the point is: how can Lisa’s mom or George W Bush or Tony Blair or any other similar moron claim they can understand the world and (what is worse) ACT FOOLISHLY/STUPIDLY because of their beliefs?

I am not asking them to learn mathematics or music. That would be too much to ask. I am asking them to try to understand that the way Homo Sapiens can perceive the world is much deeper than they can.

Furthermore, they should understand that, regardless of where Evolution actually takes us, there will always be something we cannot perceive; or at least that the possibility that this is the case exists; and that this is not because of Angels or Demons!

Well, I CAN FORGIVE Lisa’s mom (in the Simpsons) for being naive. She will, after all, tell you that “Maths was not one of her favourite subjects in School”. What I find disgusting is when you meet “enlightened” scientists who will try to prove that Angels and Demons exist using scientific/mathematical methods. Here is one of them, an Oxford professor no less.