"Not Even Wrong": What We Believe And Why

[disclaimenr: the content below is written with the help of Claude-sonnet-3.5]

In a world flooded with information and competing claims, we like to think we evaluate ideas based on evidence and reasoned analysis. But beneath our conscious reasoning lie powerful psychological forces that shape what we find persuasive - forces tied to our investments, both financial and emotional, and our sense of identity and belonging.

The “Not Even Wrong” Problem

The concept of “not even wrong” offers a powerful lens for understanding many influential claims in today’s world. This peculiar phrase, popularized by theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, describes ideas so fundamentally flawed or ill-constructed that they cannot be meaningfully evaluated as either correct or incorrect.

Sir Michael Atiyah’s final mathematical claim provides a poignant illustration. Near the end of his remarkable life, Atiyah, one of the 20th century’s most brilliant mathematicians, made a bold announcement. At age 89, having already earned both the Fields Medal and Abel Prize (mathematics’ highest honors), he claimed to have solved the Riemann hypothesis—a famous problem that had stumped mathematicians since 1859.

The mathematical community’s reaction wasn’t just skepticism; many described Atiyah’s proposed solution as “not even wrong.” His proof lacked the necessary mathematical rigor and coherence to be properly assessed within the framework of mathematical standards. It wasn’t simply incorrect, it operated outside the boundaries where traditional evaluation was possible.

This concept extends far beyond mathematics. Many powerful figures, politicians, business leaders, celebrities, employ rhetoric that functions similarly to Atiyah’s flawed proof. Their statements sound compelling but operate outside the boundaries where traditional evaluation is possible.

The Investment-Belief Reinforcement Loop

When people financially (or otherwise, e.g. socially, ethically etc) invest in companies led by charismatic visionaries, a fascinating psychological process unfolds. The financial stake creates a powerful incentive to believe in that leader’s vision and competence. This isn’t just about mentally protecting the investment - it’s about resolving cognitive dissonance.

Having committed financially, investors become more receptive to the leader’s other claims and predictions, even those outside their areas of demonstrated expertise. Each successful product or milestone reinforces this trust, making it easier to accept bold claims about future innovations or market transformations without applying rigorous scrutiny.

This creates a self-reinforcing cycle: financial investment leads to emotional investment, which leads to greater receptivity to future claims, which can lead to further financial investment. The cycle is particularly powerful because it combines material self-interest with identity formation - being a supporter becomes part of who someone is.

A company founder might make specific verifiable promises about their current products while simultaneously making grandiose, unfalsifiable claims about transforming civilization. When the concrete promises are fulfilled, it lends credibility to the grandiose ones, even though they operate on completely different evidentiary standards.

Social Proof and Tribal Identity

The second challenge is how popularity creates powerful social validation effects. When someone sees thousands or millions of people praising a business leader’s genius, it provides social proof that their visions are credible. Humans naturally look to others for cues about what to believe.

Influential figures often position themselves as outsiders fighting entrenched interests, whether legacy industries, regulatory bodies, or cultural establishments. This creates a tribal dynamic where questioning any of their claims can feel like betraying the tribe or siding with the opposition.

Social media amplifies both effects. Algorithms tend to show people content that reinforces existing beliefs, creating echo chambers where supporters primarily see positive content. Meanwhile, frequent, seemingly unfiltered posts from these figures create a sense of personal connection and authenticity that further strengthens emotional investment.

The Vulnerability in Our Thinking

These dynamics reveal a fundamental vulnerability in how we process information. We are not purely rational beings who evaluate each claim independently based on evidence. Instead, our evaluations are deeply influenced by: - Our financial interests and commitments - Our desire for consistency in our beliefs - Our need for social belonging and identity - Our attraction to compelling narratives and personalities

When these factors align behind a particular leader or company, they can override our critical faculties, leading us to accept claims we might otherwise scrutinize more carefully.

Unlike Atiyah’s mathematical claim, which was ultimately rejected by his peers, the “not even wrong” statements of powerful business and political leaders often escape rigorous evaluation. While the mathematical community has established standards for proof, our broader society lacks comparable frameworks for evaluating many bold claims about the future.

Paths Forward

For Individuals:

1. Separate financial from epistemic decisions: Acknowledge that investing in a company can be financially sound without accepting all claims made by its leadership. You can believe in a company’s market potential while maintaining healthy skepticism about its founder’s broader pronouncements.
2. Practice domain-specific evaluation: Recognize that expertise doesn’t automatically transfer across fields. A business leader’s demonstrated success in one industry doesn’t make them equally authoritative on unrelated matters.
3. Seek counter-narratives deliberately: Intentionally expose yourself to thoughtful criticism from credible sources in relevant domains. This isn’t about finding critics for critics’ sake but about seeking subject-matter experts who can provide informed context.
4. Adopt investment detachment: If you invest in companies led by charismatic visionaries, consciously separate your financial analysis from your evaluation of broader claims. Ask: “Would I believe this claim if I hadn’t invested in this company?”

For Broader Society:

1. Develop better technological literacy: Educational institutions and media could focus more on helping people understand the realistic timelines, challenges, and limitations of emerging technologies, creating better contextual knowledge for evaluating bold claims.
2. Strengthen domain expert visibility: Give more platforms and prominence to subject-matter experts who can provide balanced, nuanced evaluations of claims in their specific areas of expertise.
3. Create better frameworks for assessing innovation: Develop and popularize frameworks for evaluating technological and social claims that balance innovation optimism with realistic assessment of technical challenges, regulatory hurdles, and implementation timelines.
4. Foster healthier discourse norms: Encourage dialogue that doesn’t immediately frame skepticism as opposition or criticism as animosity. We can simultaneously appreciate innovation while questioning specific claims.

Beyond Tribal Thinking

The challenge isn’t about being “for” or “against” any particular business leader, politician, or public figure. Rather, it’s about developing the intellectual tools to engage critically with their claims while still appreciating genuine innovations or valuable ideas they may offer.

This means recognizing how financial and emotional investment can cloud judgment, and consciously working to separate the evaluation of specific claims from overall support or opposition to a person or organization.

In a world increasingly divided into tribal identities, the ability to evaluate claims independently of our investments and affiliations may be one of the most important skills we can cultivate. It allows us to navigate between blind acceptance and reflexive rejection, finding a path that honors both innovation and intellectual integrity.

The parallel between mathematical rigor and public discourse highlights that healthy societies, like healthy scientific fields, need shared standards for evaluating claims. Finding the balance between openness to new ideas and demanding appropriate evidence is perhaps the central challenge of our current information age.

While we might sympathize with Michael Atiyah’s final ambitious attempt to solve a famous mathematical problem, we can also appreciate the importance of the mathematical community’s commitment to rigorous standards of proof. This same commitment to intellectual integrity, adapted to different domains, offers our best hope for navigating a world full of compelling but unverifiable claims.

Two books come to mind: 1. Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World, by Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West. - this is directly about how to understand statements that people make. While the focus of the book is somewhat narrow, it does apply to a very broad range of situations. 2. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, by Shoshana Zuboff - This one doesn’t directly talk to this topic, but goes very deep in how certain companies are strealing the narrative and forming our believes.