Q. Am I really wrong?
Q. Are you sure?
Q. Can you prove that I’m wrong?
Yes, but, you’ll have to agree in advance what proof looks like, otherwise you could just move the goalposts after the game.
Q. How come I have so much evidence that I’m right?
That’s confirmation bias. Your brain carefully files away all the reasons you might be right, and disregards all the reasons you might be wrong.
Q. How come so many people agree with me?
They’re wrong too.
Q. They can’t all be wrong, can they?
Most people are wrong about most things most of the time. If there’s one remarkable discovery to be made in the study of science, religion and philosophy, it’s that being wrong about almost everything does people so little harm. The fact that every scientific discovery since the stone age has only doubled our life expectancy is a cutting indictment of the futility of knowledge in the face of ignorance.
Q. What about the evidence that I should be right?
Those are mostly just reasons why it’s embarrassing that you’re wrong.
Q. What about the mathematical proof that I’m probably right?
That just means we should have been momentarily surprised that you were wrong. Total denial is not called for.
Q. Why has nobody told me this before?
Given the way you’re acting now, it’s hard to imagine anybody feeling like you might be anything but completely receptive to information relating to your wrongness.
Q. So what? I’m supposed to completely rethink everything I thought I knew?
Well, bumbling blindly got you this far, and we wouldn’t be exploring all our options unless we at least considered elective ignorance. Eternal darkness loses some of its lustre once you embark upon it willingly, though, so perhaps you should take comfort in the knowledge that you’re probably wrong about all sorts of other things, too.
“a FAQ” never “an FAQ”.
It depends how you pronounce FAQ. If it’s a single word that rhymes with “back” then it’s “a FAQ” but if it’s three letters “EFF AY KEW” then it’s “an F.A.Q.”
Either is a bit clumsy: “A frequently asked questions” isn’t a lot more elegant than “an frequently asked questions” but the term has entered sufficiently common usage that it’s safe, in this context, to use it as a noun.
Aware that there would be some ambiguity over pronunciation, I put periods between the letters to give the reader a clue as to which of the two options was intended.
It’s not like I didn’t think about this.
I guess, really, what I’m trying to say, is that you’re wrong.
You are both wrong.
How ever you pronounce consonants .. .they’re still not vowels. It doesn’t mater how many reasons why it’s embarrassing that you’re wrong you cite.
A real live misinformed grammar troll? Right here on my very own blog? You guys are like the drunk hecklers of the Internet.
Funny… I always pronounced it FA Q (fa – Q). I first learned about them when I was in tech support, and that was how it was pronounced if we didn’t just say the phrase itself to the customers.
You’re both wrong because it’s more than one question. So not a singular “Frequently Asked Question” but plural “Frequently Asked Questions”. Neither “a” nor “an”. Now, you get to argue over FAQ vs. FAQs and whether or not FAQ is a collective noun for more than one question. Your time starts now…
Iraq. a FAQ. That’s I choose to pronounce it.
I challenge you, sir, to a duel.
A duel of what sorts??
My favourite line on this subject (from a Patrick O’Brian novel set in an era when duelling at dawn was the traditional manner of resolving a dispute) is “Pistols for two, coffee for one” but it seems in poor taste these days. Maybe it’ll have to be rock, paper, scissors.
To determine who’s right? Doesn’t seem fair.
Not at all. I’ll even let you go first.
“Thank you!” I’d say, being an idiot. Of course, I’m not, and like I said: rps shouldn’t be used for an argument of this kind.
You’re wrong. See above.
Pronunciation makes it start with a vovel – “ef”. Thus according to rules of english it is An FAQ.
“Q. What about the evidence that I should be right?
Those are mostly just reasons why it’s embarrassing that you’re wrong.”
Sorry for being dense, but I don’t quite get what this one is trying to say. Is it embarrassing for the Wrong person, as in “What you think of as evidence you’re right is actually evidence you’re wrong, and you should be embarrassed at how stupid you are for misinterpreting it”, or embarrassing in general, as in “Yes, you really should be right because X, but annoyingly and embarrassingly for everyone, you’re still wrong”?
Ok. This could be clearer. It’s a response to appeal to authority: “I’m an expert, so I should be right” doesn’t mean you really are right but if this is the sort of thing that you, as an expert, really ought to be right about, then you look like rather less of an expert if you turn out to be wrong.
Why don’t you change it to ‘What about my expertise and relevant background knowledge?’
That makes sense.
This is a clearer explanation.
@ProperDiscord You’re wrong.
Could you be wrong about me being wrong? 🙂
Good question. I could be, but I’m not.
Except that if you were wrong about it you’d still think exactly that way. You’re probably wrong about it. See https://properdiscord.com/2013/10/28/youre-wrong-an-f-a-q/ for an explanation.
you’re right and wrong at the same time
that’s depend from your point of view
where you stand depends where you sit….still
There’s absolutely no wrong in it to be wrong as long as you don’t try not to be wrong all the time…hey lovely write up….something quirky and humorous as well as logical…you deserve FP… So I am following you
Reblogged this on nikyliriano.
Reblogged this on The Rocky Horror Of Youth.
Are you crazy? Lol. Just kidding.
Reblogged this on musings of a quirky old soul.
Reblogged this on therealkingdev and commented:
Refreshing and probably wrong
Reblogged this on Lubabah and commented:
nice little satire. Wouldn’t have included religion in there though… Gave A. a better argument, made it about scientific inquiry and discovery but then had to add religion…
Example within an example haha.
If we’re going to talk about being wrong about stuff, it would be strange to ignore religion. The major monotheistic religions present their single deity as the one true God with a single creation narrative and a sometimes self-contradictory set of rules to live by. Without taking a side here, these religions can’t all be right, so even if they’re not all wrong, most of them are. Unless, that is, we’re embracing a non-aristoteleian form of logic in which two contradictory statements can simultaneously be true, in which case everybody can be wrong about everything and still be right.
Oh nono I didn’t mean that, I completely agree with your take on religion – but presented in the argument along with science didn’t seem right. Scientific discovery and advancement is, in my view, exactly the opposite of religiosity. One of the most harmful and illogical vices to have crept up through evolution is religion. Science is combating the futility of our ignorant disposition while religion perpetuates it.
They’re all areas where we get to observe wrongness – sometimes in the search for truth, sometimes in the pigheaded pursuit of wrongness. Religion and science are not the same thing, but we do get to use the two words in the same sentence from time to time.
Fair enough – I agree with that. I just wouldn’t put them both in the context of discovery and true knowledge. But then again, that’s me. I am an atheist who adheres to Einsteinian religion and admires people like Dawkins and Hitchens.
No one can be right all the time, except for me. lol
Reblogged this on Less Is More…More or Less. and commented:
A pretty clever perspective!
Thank you for this. So much.
You’re welcome. And wrong.
Q. Confirmation bias is a doubled-edged sword. If you use it to disprove someone, they can simply use it to disprove you.
That’s not really a question.
Q. Nope. And your confirmation bias has removed from your awareness the fact that everyone’s reality is right for them.
Q. I just did.
Confirmation bias is the habit of only recognising evidence that supports a believe you already hold. It is an explanation for why somebody might believe something, but it doesn’t disprove that argument – it only explains how somebody can have ignored the evidence to the contrary.
The idea that everybody’s reality is right for them is a treacherous line to take. In the words of Harry G Frankfurt (On Truth, Pimlico, 2007):
Frankfurt is good. He doesn’t mess about. He writes short books about big things, and he gets to the point. He goes on:
Wow, that’s a lot of quoting. And yet, I’m still right.
You see, I’m so sure that the sun exists that when somebody tells me it doesn’t, I don’t argue with them. I just smile, shake my head, sadly, and walk away.
Their belief, strange as it is, must serve them or they wouldn’t hold it. And if they are arguing with strangers, trying to get them to join their team, their team must be on shaky ground. Only the dubious proselytize, only the fearful require an army.
Shaking my head, walking away.
You’ve created a magical reality in which everybody’s truth is right for them, so of course you’re right. This one actually is a double-edged sword, though, because it means I’m right too, which is how come you’re wrong. You walked away just in time to not get trapped in your own circular argument. Or maybe you didn’t. Or perhaps both.
hahahaha.. an article that successfully drive people to write/give comments!
Hahaha, this is great! Good job on this!
It sounds like a conversation with the iPhone’s Siri.
Reblogged this on Surviving in Paradise and commented:
Everyone else is always wrong.
This was quite entertaining. I thoroughly enjoyed the sarcasm and satire amongst you and your readers.
Reblogged this on TheGEorgIApRncESs and commented:
Reblogged this on Letters to November.
Reblogged this on Monkey Memoirs..
Reblogged this on Apps Lotus's Blog.
Reblogged this on umsterling.
The Cruciverbalist says: The solution to “Internet data” is not FAQ. The answers to FAQs comprise the internet data.
Reblogged this on Ramblings and Musings and commented:
Funny. I don’t know if the comments will carry through, the comments are as good as the post!
This could also be called Perception is Reality.
The trouble with “perception is reality” is that it replaces truth with sincerity. The upside is everybody gets to be right. The downside is the concept of truth becomes meaningless. This only seems like a good deal if you have a sneaking suspicion you were wrong in the first place.