In recent years, I have observed a curious phenomenon: the more confident individuals appear on television programs discussing economics and politics, the more frequently they seem to be mistaken. This paradox intrigues me, and I believe it stems from the fundamental differences between these fields and disciplines like mathematics and natural science.
Unlike mathematics and natural science, where hypotheses can be rigorously tested through mathematical formulas and empirical experiments, politics and economics defy such straightforward verification. Their complexity arises from the interplay of myriad factors, making them inherently challenging to pin down definitively. Moreover, opinions in these domains often reflect the values and personalities of those who hold them.
Given these complexities, I find it prudent to question the unwavering certainty with which individuals assert their theories. Is it genuine conviction, or could it be driven by other motives? Perhaps some seek attention for their views, while others overlook critical nuances due to lack of consideration. Additionally, confirmation bias—a tendency to favor information that supports preexisting beliefs—may also play a role.
In light of these considerations, I remain cautious when encountering confident assertions, recognizing that the truth lies somewhere amidst the diverse array of opinions and perspectives.
