We think our theories about reality – whether in physics, philosophy, or psychology – should aspire to be faithful descriptions of how reality actually is. But philosopher of science Manuel Delaflor makes the case that this aspiration is incredibly dangerous. Instead of thinking our theories map onto an underlying reality, Delaflor asks us to stop worshipping our models, even though we cannot stop modelling any more than we can stop breathing. Evaluating our theories by what they can do, and not by what they claim to be, will make us far more productive and happier.

There is a moment, just before you fully wake, when you don't know who you are. For a breath or two, there is experience without a name attached to it. No nationality. No profession. No opinions about immigration or breakfast cereals. Just… this... sensation without stubborn content. This can also happen when having a peak experience, an awe where everything feels… different, that cannot be put into words. And then the labels arrive, one after another, like apps loading on a phone, and within seconds you are yourself again: your name, your worries, your convictions, your plans for Tuesday. The moment passes so quickly that most people never notice it happened. But something was there before the naming began. Something that needed no beliefs to sustain it. I want to talk about that something. But in order to do that properly, first, I need to talk about everything we pile on top of it.

Beliefs, certainties, ideologies, even the day-by-day heuristics that allow you to function as a person. And what I find interesting is that all of that, all of it, everything you believe you know—is wrong. Not approximately wrong. Not wrong in the details while right in spirit. Wrong in a way that cannot be fixed by swapping one belief for a better one, wrong in the deepest possible sense that language cannot even touch, because the error is not in the content of your beliefs but in the act of believing itself, the assumption about any symbolic structure can faithfully represent what it claims to describe.

Your beliefs about God are wrong. Your beliefs about science are wrong. Your beliefs about yourself, your country, your childhood, your future—wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong. And before the objections start arriving, let me be clear: mine are too. And no, this is not a new set of beliefs that “are true” that I am trying to “teach” you or shove down your throat. And no, this is also not cynicism. If anything, it is better to say that this is a diagnosis. And the prescription, I promise, is not despair.

___

A belief is a stabilization mechanism. It takes the roaring, kaleidoscopic flood of experience and holds one frame still long enough for you to act on it.

___