Few days back, somewhere on a forum on internet, I posted a probable explanation of a phenomenon, and immediately someone replied back that "One should keep quite if she/he doesn't know the right explanation". Although I had complemented the post with disclaimer that this is my guess and may not be correct. But still, that prompted him to respond that too immediately.
It made me ponder over the question of wrong, is it simply dogmatism that wrong is not liked or it is really not worthy of anything? or it is such a bad thing that its possession makes you mute? or rather, why right is considered the only good thing in this world and worthy of possession?
So, I started with comparing it to it's religious rival - 'right'. I realized that the existence of right depends on wrong, as long as wrong exists, right can exists and right becomes insignificant if wrong is absent. So, for it's existence and importance, right depends on wrong, and the same is true with wrong. Wrong remains right until there is a different view point to prove a view wrong and something else right, which itself is prone to be proved as wrong in future. So, everything has a possibility to be proven as wrong, nothing is eternally right. Hence, at the core, wrong and right are complementary to each other and not rivals. So logically, they are at the same level and you can't say one is inferior to other.
So, I started with comparing it to it's religious rival - 'right'. I realized that the existence of right depends on wrong, as long as wrong exists, right can exists and right becomes insignificant if wrong is absent. So, for it's existence and importance, right depends on wrong, and the same is true with wrong. Wrong remains right until there is a different view point to prove a view wrong and something else right, which itself is prone to be proved as wrong in future. So, everything has a possibility to be proven as wrong, nothing is eternally right. Hence, at the core, wrong and right are complementary to each other and not rivals. So logically, they are at the same level and you can't say one is inferior to other.
Since childhood, have we been doing more wrongs than rights. We started with doing things wrongly then proceeded to right sometimes ourselves and sometimes were tough by elders. But the truth is that we did wrong first before right and more number of times than right. So naturally or biologically we have favored wrong more than right.
Another interesting observation about wrong is, that without wrong, knowledge was not possible at all and consequently no development was possible. If you look closely at the way knowledge is produced, you will find that knowledge is basically a synthesis of many wrongs or better call them partial truths. Multiple view points get synthesized together to churn out knowledge. German philosopher Hegel said, that there has to be an anti-thesis in opposition of a thesis for the synthesis to take place. It is this synthesized form, which is closer to right. In practical life too wrong is important as evident from this confession by Thomas Edison, that before inventing the 'Bulb' he failed thousands times, and the value of these failures was that they become the known ways a 'Bulb' can't be produced and yet contributed towards the invention of 'Bulb'. So, wrong has an utility, it is not that useless of a thing.
In a nut shell, biologically, logically and utility wise too, wrong is worthy of respect and we all should value it and should never hate it. Wrong is the natural mean to achieve the end 'right'. Mahatma Gandhi said, the means are as important as the ends. So, recognize it and synthesize it for the betterment of the world and yourself :)
