How do we know that our choices make sense?
Whenever we decide to do something we believe that what we are about to do actually does make sense. How do we determine if we are right or wrong? How can we be certain that our actions are actually beneficial and not counterproductive? How do we know what is true? Without the truth we couldn’t possibly make good decisions. Good decisions are the product of knowledge but how do we acquire knowledge in the first place? Perhaps it is impossible to produce a reliable method that would allow us to consistently make good decisions but even if this is the case we might still avoid an option that consistently produces bad ones. Another relevant question might be why do we make mistakes?
Comments (159)
Be true to yourself and let the cards fall where they may. I'm in just such a situation now. It's exhilarating.
Would you mind clarifying what you mean? Some elaboration would be greatly appreciated.
Are you asking for individual approaches to these two separate questions, or if there is an 'objective' approach.
Right or wrong about what?
By what criteria do you define beneficial?
Personally I just wing it based on experience and common sense - which is kind of anathema to 'proper' philosophy. I think when it comes to important decisions about day to day living, few people are theorists.
How do you forget the common sense that you have no idea the variables at play.
Do we just believe what's convenient, psychologically (if even that.)
I'm just trying to ignore the question. I don't know if I've got a grip on reality or not.
I would prefer an objective approach but individual approaches could still be valuable.
It's easy to end up living a life that isn't your own. It's like there's a voice in the world telling you what to eat, what to wear, what to say, what to be afraid of, what to cheer for, etc.
There's safety in following that lead, but ultimately it's a sheep's life. To live your own life, you have to discover the deeper imperatives in your being. It may take time to discover them. But then spontaneously follow them.
You may hurt people in the process, but these are people who wanted to use you as an appendage. All you can do is be sorry for their pain and move on.
I think it would help if you sketched out what it is you are asking with greater clarity using examples. Generalized discussion (minus specific examples) often gets us nowhere.
I’m asking how we can know that our confidence in our own decisions is justified or not.
I would use the criteria of medicine. What I mean is that historically some treatments that have been adopted were later abandoned due to new evidence demonstrating the lack of any value. Bleeding a patient would be an example.
Would you mind identifying precisely where I was unclear And what kind of examples would be helpful?
You seem not to understand me. The point is about what decisions? Every situation is different. Right or wrong about mass murder or right or wrong about giving money to the poor? There is no multifactorial right and wrong assessment mechanism.
Quoting Average
You are asking general questions that have no answer. Be specific. As above. Morality will have a different pathways to aesthetics. - do you follow?
How did you come to this conclusion?
How do you know that the questions I am asking have no answer?
I disagree
I don’t think that it is necessary to discuss specific choices that have been made by different people. If you believe that it would be worth our time and energy please explain your reasoning.
I’m not sure what you are referring to when you mentioned the deeper imperatives of our being.
I agree but I also think that this fact is irrelevant
Well then why are you asking if there is one? If you have one demonstrate it.
I'm going to opt out of this. If it goes somewhere I might drop in again. Cheers.
I highly doubt that ignoring the problem is the solution
How do you solve a problem like Maria?
Who is Maria?
Dude, you gotta watch "Sound of Music."
That said, there's much to consider between how disjointed this all must be, yet how operable.
So basically the nuns sing a song
We don't.
All we can do is do what we think is best, given the circumstances we are in. If we are on the right path, so to speak, we will feel good and satisfied, some of the time anyway. If we are going the wrong way, it'll likely feel bad after a certain amount of time.
But there are no guarantees and we could be fooling ourselves.
The problem is that very often what we think is best ends up producing catastrophic consequences
Well, I can't avoid cliché's here:
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Constant questioning, but mild confidence in what you're doing is likely the best you can do. Unless you are totally nuts and need a therapist. :)
Why mild confidence? Why not complete confidence or no confidence?
I'm unsure as to whether my "plan" not to have a plan will pay off at some point but given my present circumstances, I have absolutely nothing to show for it, zip, nada.
Do you think it's possible to determine if we are right or wrong? Why or why not?
Is it wise to aim at certainty before making a decision?
Do we actually make decisions or do they just sort of happen and then we come up with a reason we made the decision after the fact?
Something about your question seems ambiguous to me. What does it mean for a decision to make sense? To who? Right and wrong to who? Who is to judge?
PS. In general, it seems the options are to learn as best we can from the experience of others and what we can't learn vicariously we have to learn from our own experience. I don't think there is an air-tight formula one can pass down to others so one can be certain one is making a "right" or "beneficial" decision. However, maybe we can come up with general rules of thumbs. Basic guidelines. Maybe by averaging out advice from a large pool of successful happy people. It might turn out to be highly individualistic though. I probably shouldn't be giving my own opinions on the matter because I'm not a happy person myself, so what do I know.
Complete confidence blinds you. No confidence cripples you.
How do we make decisions? We evaluate our situation and mentally run through our options based on the experiences and the knowledge we accumulated in our life. I like to imagine this as running a sort of mental equation through my head. Theoretically, if I know all parameters and operate them accordingly, I will always have the same result. I shall take this as my understanding of a "right decision" as well - that is my decision is right in matching my expectation.
I used to be the kind of person who always had a step by step plan and a clear vision of what I want in life. I've changed my ways though. Now I have a rough idea where I want to go in life and I have a rough idea how to get there - but I take the opportunities as they come. The reason for this is simple: I came to notice that if I follow my plans step by step, the results of my steps often weren't what I expected at all.
When we make miniscule decisions, like the ordinary choices we make every day, the mental equation is simple. There are few factors to consider and so these simple decisions basically become automated by our brain. Everyday we're met with a near endless amount of decisions, most so small that we don't even notice making a decision.
But then what about significant decisions? What about decisions that alter large parts of our life? The more potential change a decision holds, the more complicated the mental equation gets. We quickly reach a level of complexity where it becomes impossible to consider all influencing factors and possible outcomes. This is especially true if the decision involves the actions of other people, which in a sense pose an equation of their own.
Confidence then ultimately represents how sure we are about our equation. We're right to be confident in our everyday decisions. But to have "complete confidence" is to claim that our decisions are absolutely infallible. This is akin to claiming we know everything about any given situation. Considering the complexity that any given situation can take, I think it rightful to call this foolish just like a person who claims to know everything would rightfully be called foolish.
No confidence at all on the other hand leaves us forever guessing at our equation. If we have not the slightest idea about the outcome of our decision, there is no point in making a decision at all. Rather, we'll try having others make our decision as much as possible.
I think both actually work to some degree. You can run around in the world acting like you're the smartest and claiming you make all the best decisions for a while. You can surrender all responsibility and let someone else make all your decisions for you for a while. But I reckon both ways open up the door to serious crisis. One where we make a fatal mistake because we were completely oblivious to the possibility of making a mistake at all. The other being forced to make a decision when we lack the confidence to do so, leaving us to guesswork even during crucial decisions in our life.
What you call the criteria of medicine seems to be health. Problem is, is health morally right ? If so, then are there exceptions ? If me bleeding to death saved a person from being killed, did I do the irght thing ? If yes, then it must be that there are values higher than health.
Quoting Average
As others have pointed out already, you're asking questions that are too broad to be dealt with. We cannot determine whether we are right or wrong if we do not know what is right and what is wrong. A similar problem arises with your second question too.
But still, for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that happiness is the highest Good, like most claim. The question then is how do you determine whether your actions will reduce or increase the amount of happiness in the world.
The answer is that it is extremely hard to do. Of course, if you knew all the relevant variables, like the sensibilities of those who would be impacted, their preferences, etc., then you could determine the morality of the action. But in real life, we very rarely have that information, What you can do instead is look at what you know, and try to learn as much as possible before deciding a course of action.
But what if you don't know anything about the consequences ? The answer is that if possible, do not act. But if you are forced to act, then I'd say you can do whatever you want to, because whatever what you will do, you cannot be held responsible for the consequences.
Because we could be wrong in our beliefs and attitudes. It's better to recognize this than to become dogmatic, in as much as is possible.
I think that morality is irrelevant. What I mean is that regardless of whether or not health is morally right we need to be healthy in order to do anything in the first place. Also health is only the goal in this example but if I used other examples it would become clear that my criterion is different. For example if we shifted to a military scenario it would become clear that certain tactics and strategies historically adopted were later abandoned due to new evidence demonstrating a lack of any value. The same argument would still apply.
You seem to be advocating some sort of pragmatic approach but I’d rather be blind or crippled. What I mean is that in my opinion placing any degree of confidence in a decision should be based on some sort of evidence or proof that what you’re doing is going to generate the desired results. Otherwise we’re just taking shots in the dark hoping that what we do actually does make sense.
Idk I’d prefer to avoid assuming that happiness is the highest good
Please define broad
I would think so because we have made some advancements in the field of medicine for example.
It’s a good idea in my opinion
I think we make decisions but people are different and some people will try to justify or rationalize their decisions afterwards.
But what about when the objective can only be accomplished at the detriment of one's health ? Do you sacrifice it, or is there a point where it's better to fail ?
Quoting Average
What I mean is your questions can be broken down into a lot of "smaller questions". But I realize this isn't that much of a problem actually.
Quoting Average
But we need some assumption to work with. If we don't, then we have to answer the question of what is the good, which is a monumental question by itself before trying to answer your question. So, what do you assume to be the highest good ?
Can you think of a specific example where this would be the case? It would help me immensely.
I don’t know if there is a highest good but if I was forced to answer I would probably select the truth in the end.
I think that in order for a decision to make sense it needs to actually produce the desired result. For example in the field of medicine bleeding a patient doesn’t make sense because it does not produce the desired result.
Imagine that there's an asteroid coming towards Earth and I am sent on a mission to stop it. Now imagine that to do so, I must activate a device that can only be activated manually and destroys everything in a 50 km radius, destroying the asteroid and me.
If you’re asking me what I would do in that situation the answer is that I would probably activate the device. So no I don’t think that health is the highest good or some sort criterion we can use to make decisions.
Speak for yourself! :D
So if you try something and fail, does that mean it didn't make sense to try?
Can you think of a concrete example where this would be the case? It would help me immensely.
I think I can speak for everyone in this instance.
Assuming you trust the consensus of medical experts on the efficacy of blood letting, then you already have reason to think blood letting will not produce the desired result.
So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try something when you already feel sure it will not succeed.
However, if blood letting was not yet widely tested, and there is some reason to think it may work, and the consequences of failure aren't dire, it could possibly make sense to try blood letting.
Assuming blood letting in fact doesn't work at all, this was probably discovered by trying it and testing the results, and comparing the results to chance etc.
I don’t think that it would make sense to try something even if you feel fairly certain that it will succeed. What we need is some sort of proof or evidence that guarantees that we are making decisions that make sense.
I’m not sure how useful this hypothetical scenario is. I can’t replicate those conditions so I have no way of knowing if you’re right or not. But I do appreciate your input.
I can imagine doing that in the medical profession, but I'm not sure how that can be done outside of a setting where there are standard procedures. (And even in medicine people can still come up with new or improved procedures or run into unprecedented or rare cases, and the experts don't always agree 100% on which procedures are best for which particular cases.)
PS. I'd think the best one can hope for is to know oneself enough to know that one isn't fooling oneself and is making the best possible decision in light of the known information.
I agree but people can also come up with horrible ideas that can end up doing more harm than good which is why it’s important to have a method that can detect problems in advance if possible.
You might be right but hopefully there is a way to predict the consequences of our actions and avoid catastrophe
You’re looking for a shortcut, the idea that there is an objective, consensus-based correct path. The major religions think this way. Maybe you should consult the clergy. i dont believe there is such a thing as objective truth about the important matters one’s life. You can grab onto some authority if it would make you feel better to conform to someone else’s idea of
what to do.
But the fact is , each of us create our own version of reality to guide us in the world. Since our world is constantly changing , we have to change our thinking from time to time to keep up with it.
Your own emotions are the the most important indicators you have that your ways of coping that used to work are starting to fail you.
When you start feeling confusion, self doubt and anxiety that means it’s time to get experimental and start
trying out new ways of approaching things. Your own feelings will tell you if you’re on the right track or not.
I definitely do believe that there is such a thing as objective truth about the important matters in life and It seems obvious to me but I don’t expect everyone to agree. Would you mind explaining why you don’t believe in objective truth when it comes to the important matters in our lives? I would love to learn more about your position.
where the other person is at rather than from assumed objective standards. Those standards are just an averaging of all our individual differences. Kind of like 98.6 fahrenheit is just an average of many bodies. We don’t demand that everyone be at the same temp.
Can you give me an example of what an objective standard might look like because I don’t recall ever trying to use them as some sort of basis. In other words I’m not even sure what you’re referring to when you mention objective standards. I could really use some clarification.
I disagree but I’m willing to listen to whatever arguments lead you to this conclusion in the first place.
Some simple examples: Buying a lottery ticket, drug addict, hunger, poverty or love/sex.
I agree but I don’t think that it necessarily follows from this that I’m wrong when I claim that people believe they are doing what is best when they select some solution to their problems. In other words they think that it makes sense. Otherwise it’s hard to believe that they would voluntarily choose to do what seems inferior and absurd.
At least we agree on one thing. Humans are indeed extraordinarily absurd beings.
Or Eliza?
(@Tom Storm pointed this out).
Quoting Average
Quoting Average
Quoting Average
Quoting Average
Quoting Average
Quoting Average
Quoting Average
Quoting Average
Quoting Average
Repeating terms used in the previous text. Lack of general knowledge. Pat statements that could fit in anywhere. Inverting statements to construct replies. Looks like pattern recognition software.
Lol
Prove yourself brave, truthful and unselfish, and someday you will be a real boy, Pinocchio. :joke:
I don’t want to be a real boy
I was under the impression that you lost interest in this conversation Tom.
These words you use, beneficial and counterproductive, are so ambiguous. One can assume you mean toward yourself the observer, but why? What may immediately benefit you in the fashion you were expecting out of an action or experience could very well spell the opposite in a greater and more permanent sense.
If you seek certainty, philosophy is not for you. Then again neither is life for that matter. Science, mathematics, and computing sounds more up your alley. These things are certain. At least.. until you reach that one equation, singularity, newer theory, or in some cases loss of electricity.
I apologize if there is some ambiguity imbedded in my questions but this is the first time I’ve ever started a discussion. Hopefully you can overlook my lack of experience.
I’m not sure that there is this kind of clear demarcation between these subjects and philosophy. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think so.
Perhaps the truth lies between someone saying "This is not what I wanted to do but I had to do it" and "This is not what I had to do but I wanted to do it." However, even in cases where one wants to act in a certain way, one carefully studies the pros and cons and, intriguingly, when that's done, the best alternative is, all things considered, a diktat of logic. So, yeah, at worst, no choice and at best, only an illusion of choice.
Off-topic. :grin:
I think what I mean by a choice is a decision. Like someone deciding to do something or to believe something. The concept of choice or the notion of a decision seems to revolve around some sort of action. So basically what it boils down to is what we end up doing. So what I’m asking is how do we know that what we do makes sense.
I couldn’t care less about the free will debate. Whether or not we have choice isn’t what I’m interested in. I’m interested in our behavior.
The word "decide" has two important meanings:
1. Choose
2. Judge
Thus when we decide we choose wisely.
To each his own. Different strokes for different folks. :up:
I think the idea that when we decide we choose wisely is absurd. Every decision ever made could then be categorized as a wise decision but we know that this isn’t the case. I’m not sure what you’re trying to communicate but if I’m misinterpreting your conclusion please provide me with a little bit of elaboration and clarification.
The ideal (decision) is quite separate from the actual (decision). You'll find bad decisions call this gap home. Good decisions (wise choices) are what we're gunning for, but sometimes we fail and take a bad decision.
I’m glad we agree on this
:up: Same here!
It's not even that. I think there's a Radiolab episode about it... ADDED: Well, I mean, yes it is quite specifically "an average of many bodies", but it isn't and never was the "average normal human temperature" or something.
Quoting Average
Actually there's plenty of reason to think they wouldn't bother to find out what's best. Google "herbert simon satisficing". Perfect is the enemy of good.
At first I thought you were stuck on the problem of the criterion, which most people prefer to ignore as circular nonsense, but in several posts, you seem to demand something like knowledge of the future in order to make a decision. I'll grant you, sometimes people pull in their horns too readily in the name of human fallibility, but some standards or expectations are still obviously unreachable. This for instance:
Quoting Average
Proof? Guarantees? Ambition is commendable, but are you serious?
Socrates spoke like that (Dialectical Method). :chin: Hmmmmm...
I think that what I would prefer to oracular insight is knowledge of the present. What I mean is that for instance throughout history military methods have been employed without an accurate understanding of the enemy, the terrain, the climate or the actual capabilities of one’s own forces among other variables. This kind of ignorance leads to destruction.
I am serious
Can you think of an example where this would be the case? I think that it might enable me to understand your ideas.
This is a pristine example of overthinking. :sparkle:
I suppose it’s possible.
Buying the latest iPhone. Or just any action that constitutes what in hindsight and with greater knowledge could be called a 'mistake'. That's the thing about avoiding risk, you only know the good that you missed out on, the bad and undesirable will always remain a mystery. It's clear why risk taking is so popular.
Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to be using the example of buying an iPhone to illustrate the fact that we make mistakes. I agree but I don’t see any reason why it’s necessary to discuss this. At first you simply reminded me that we can make decisions that appear to satisfy our expectations in the short term but ultimately result in some sort of misfortune in the future. I’m a bit perplexed.
Count yourself fortunate then. I suppose with little immediate value my extracted answer would be "we don't" or otherwise "we can't".
Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette. Practice makes perfect. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. He who jests at scars never felt a wound. Smooth seas never made a skilled sailor (Wow do I hate that, the go to meme for every 20 year old girl- anywhere). But, yeah. Take your pick.
Why do you feel such a need to be correct and successful in everything you do. Just out of procedure, proper nature? Or some instance where all you held dear seemed to turn and become your enemy? There are no wrong answers here.
I think that it’s important to be correct and successful. It seems better than the alternative of being incorrect and unsuccessful in everything I do. Besides the stakes are high enough to justify trying to find a solution that works.
Probably because they think that they already know what is best but even if this is true I don’t think that it follows from it that people wouldn’t still try to justify their decisions with reasons. These reasons would help them to view their choices as reasonable. In other words they would still think that their choices make sense which is what I meant when I used the word best in that context.
Well, no.
Quoting Average
Of course not. The issue is optimization vs satisficing.
Please forgive me if I’ve misunderstood your argument. Would you mind defining these two terms? I’ve never come across the word satisficing and I’m not sure what optimization means here. Apparently I’m incapable of understanding the information independently.
If I’m wrong then please share the correct conclusion with me.
I’m still not sure how these concepts are connected to the discussion. How are they relevant?
There.
I still agree with that statement but you seem to think that it’s flawed. I’m not sure why though. You mentioned that there is evidence which suggests people won’t even bother to find out what is best but I think that even if that is the case it’s irrelevant. Perhaps selecting the word best wasn’t the best idea I’ve ever had. If you really think that it’s worthy of this level of attention perhaps I should have used another word.
Are you smarter than Thomas Edison? Rather, have you invented something more impactful to society? No? Then the answer is quite simple. Trial and error.
I hope so
This might seem obvious to you but it isn’t obvious to me so please help me understand how you came to this conclusion. Personally I think that trial and error is a bad idea. For example let’s suppose that you try something and it turns out to be deadly like putting radium in make up for example. Is that really the best way to solve our problems? Without knowledge everything that you try will result in error. You could argue that knowledge comes from trials and or errors but not if you die as a result.
In medical and military science putting this idea into practice would result in a lot of dead bodies. The person who attempted to put it into practice would probably be one of the casualties. I doubt that you would want to be one of the soldiers or one of the patients that would be used as a guinea pig to test all of the experimental tactics and strategies or medicines and surgeries.
Epistemic Responsibility.
Logic Is Evil. Change My Mind
Perhaps, perhaps not. Better the devil you know, I suppose. Not many new choices or other tools in the arsenal let alone a magic bullet. Scientific experimentation (trial and error) or observational comparison, which is still science (ie. people who eat fast food daily often become obese and have increased likelihood to suffer from health complications therefore fast food is unhealthy and causes said complications).
Quoting Average
Generally no, though when I'm feeling invigoratingly pious I do revel at the thought or opportunity of sacrificing myself to save others or for some greater good. At least people I like or who otherwise continue to benefit causes or concerns that I deem important long after I would no longer be able to. Don't you?
In other words, are there reasons behind our decisions?
[quote=J. P. Morgan]A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason.[/quote]
2. How do we know our choices make sense?
In the thick of it, one is aware of only the good reason but with hindsight and a loads of soul-searching, one finds out the real reason.
I do admire these sentiments but I suspect that you’d probably be able to do more good if you avoided death. In fact it’s difficult to call a decision that leads to death prudent especially if no one is saved and no greater good is produced as a result of your sacrifice. How could you calculate the value of these deaths? In other words we have no way of knowing how many lives would be saved or how many lives would be sacrificed. We also have no way of knowing who would be saved and who would die.
Precisely. :smile:
As you've alluded to we have references and reasonable enough claims, at least in comparison to others. Nothing more. Nothing less. The charm that is the mystery of life. I suggest programming languages and mathematics to satisfy this need for certainty you have. Besides, it may not be life, but it sure has a mark on it.
I think we can do better than references and reasonable claims especially when it comes to important life or death questions. I could be wrong though and I don’t want to seem like some sort of judgmental critic.
Well then by all means, the floor is yours. You think you say, which predicates or at least opens the possibility of an action. An action whose consequences and benefits you will undoubtedly take note of and either file under 'successful' or 'to be avoided'. Of course, most things in life are not single actions but rather chain reactions that lead to an understanding few will discover. Patience is a fleeting trait of the modern human. Perhaps by design. And looking around at all the readily-accessible tools of wholesale destruction, perhaps not a moment too soon at that.
I would like to begin by noting that throughout history humans have sought to produce results with all sorts of methods. The Aztecs for example tried to placate the gods with sacrifices to ensure a successful harvest but these days those kinds of practices are seen as barbaric by many. Flagellation was used during the plague by some as a means of solving the pandemic but today this would also be viewed with some degree of hostility. I think that it would be wise to collectively or individually measure the utility of our methods in order to determine their actual efficiency. We might use statistics to establish causation instead of failing to recognize that we’re dealing with a correlation in certain situations. Of course I could be mistaken or misguided.
How do we know when our perceptions make sense? How do we learn to have reliable expectations about any course of events?
It seems pretty clear that we learn to understand our own actions, and to anticipate their results, in the same way we learn to understand and anticipate other sorts of phenomena. Through a lot of trial and error, on the basis of experience.
See, e.g., Hume on the reason of animals.
Maybe this is true of humanity as a whole or of a society but when it comes to us as individuals we often don’t develop any understanding of our actions. This is especially true if an action results in fatalities, particularly when we are the ones who become the casualties. Some trials and some errors can’t really be analyzed through the lens you seem to be proposing. Suicide is an example.
Question with many possible if\else answers, but the core to decision making is prudence.
Mixing beneficial and not counterproductive, I believe in addition to material benefit of an action it should also be morally acceptable?
Because an action that is morally not acceptable may produce consequences one way or the other.
If so then, if you need to weight material benefit over consequences of immoral it all boils down how much of risk you can take or what is moral for you or society you live in.
"When it comes to us as individuals", sometimes we understand a situation correctly; sometimes we're mistaken; sometimes we have no idea what's going on. Sometimes our predictions are correct; other times they are incorrect; other times we may not be in position to make any prediction at all.
As I remarked previously, it just doesn't seem to matter whether we're considering some action we're about to undertake, or some other sort of phenomenon we're merely observing. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong. In either case, what we do know about a course of events is largely informed by similar instances in the past, including instances we experienced first hand, and instances we've learned of through the testimony of others.
Quoting AverageIn what regard are these cases different? And what prevents them from being analyzed the way I've suggested?
We know on the basis of experience that when an action results in fatalities, living organisms become corpses; and we know what happens to corpses. On the basis of experience, we have fairly robust and reliable expectations about a wide range of actions any person may take to kill a living organism, and we have just as good a grasp of other series of events that are not any person's action that may result in the death of living organisms -- like heart attacks and cancer, for instance.
I've yet to see what problem you're trying to articulate.
I apologize if I’ve failed in one form or another when it comes to communicating effectively. Perhaps I didn’t understand your position as well as I should have. Perhaps I’ve failed to explain my position properly.
I agree
What I was trying to explain is that once someone makes a decision that results in their death they are no longer capable of analyzing anything. Of course I know that this is obvious but I think that it’s worth mentioning.
I wish I understood why you emphasize experience so heavily. Are you some sort of empiricist? I was trying to avoid epistemology. I don’t care where knowledge comes from. What I’m interested in is a strategy for mistake reduction.
Necessity, much like ignorance, is not a constant but a circumstantial.. circumstance. The four year old child may be unaware of the next logical step in a basic mathematical equation just as the forty year old professor may be unaware of the next logical step in a complex equation that describes complex nuclear fission.
We all want things. We act based on what we deem is the most efficient way to get them. For example, you probably placate your hunger and various cravings with unhealthy food and other substances, as do I. I forget my point, though as you hold this discussion to be fruitful or at least of some purpose no matter how vague or minute, so do I with this post.
Sometimes I forget my point too so no worries. Thank you for endorsing this discussion, It really means a lot to me.
Why do I feel a vague, possibly powerful, insidious sense of sarcasm lodged ever so craftily in these alleged sincere words. Perhaps my own frailties or manifested malfeasances reflected back at me are what I see. I'd almost hope so. Almost.
I think you’re right to be wary when it comes to sincerity. Even if you seem to be suffering from some form of paranoia. Other people are rarely what they appear to be. I myself am extremely skeptical and suspicious when it comes to other people and their dubious benevolence.
I am just getting on the path again Frank and right now "exhilarating" is not the word I would use. :fear:
Hi Average!
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
We are excited you are here.
Enjoy your stay~
Tiff :flower:
Would you mind telling me how you arrived at this conclusion?
Change is stressful. It let's you know you're alive, though.
I myself harbor a different opinion. I believe that it is important to know the truth before we decide to act. In fact it doesn’t do you much good to learn the truth too late. An example of someone who embarked on a military expedition, like Marcus Licinius Crassus when he tried to invade Parthia only to find out that it was fated to end in disaster, might illustrate my point.
Of course. Knowing the truth about a lemon icecream helps in decision making when it comes to choose a taste.
Since we both agree that knowing the truth is important whenever we decide to do something perhaps it might be a good idea to discuss how that knowledge is acquired. I’m of the opinion that a simple ratio is enough to find out if our methods work well enough to be worth our time and energy.
We don't go through a phase where were thinking whilst we're about to do something we have chose.
I’m not sure I completely understand your position but if I’m misconstruing your conclusion I hope you’ll let me know. I agree that we often don’t think before we act but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t make an effort to do just that. Personally I think that it makes sense to do the calculus before you end up wasting valuable resources.
Sure! Good idea. Though we must firstly choose a base system of knowledge. Or you prefer a formalization? Applicable to all bases, be it the scientific one or the one of the Hopi? Examples do the trick too. As many examples as possible can do the trick too and can show the different choices people make, on the different bases of knowledge.
It can be, though that's pretty problematic. Most choices are non-random. It's not universal though. In the sense that it applies to all people.
I’m not exactly sure I know what you’re referring to when you mention a base system of knowledge. Would you mind explaining the concept to me? I would be grateful.
/quote]
It's pretty simple. Different people have different views of reality and a knowledge in accordance with it. I see a physical universe filled with material stuff, and a knowledge of it. Others see a universe filled with God's, ghosts and ethereal entities. You can base your decisions on both. Of course there are more then two realities as humanity is not divided up in two. Nevertheless all people can have choice making in common.
Would you agree that there are incorrect conclusions? Or do you believe that everybody is right about everything? I only ask because if you would classify incorrect conclusions as knowledge that category becomes worthless in my opinion.
Firstly, I only now see your response. Something went wrong. Im not sure why your name is under my comment. Ah, I see why! I made a mistake! No wonder I waited in vain for your reply. Sorry. I draw the wrong conclusion that it was a computer error. Already one wrong conclusion!
I don't say that everybody is right. That everybody is right and everybody jumps to the right conclusions. You already have one example! God forbid! Right and wrong conclusions can be drawn in every system of reality, be it within the framework of a vision in which the universe was created 6000 years ago within one of a universe filled with God's, or in the realm of an elementary particles view. Every system has its own ways and forms of knowledge and I'm not sure if a general abstract But I assume you mean the kind of conclusions I just made?
Would you mind defining knowledge? That way we both know what we are referring to when we discuss it.
Knowledge is knowing. Be it how elementary charged (which by definition they must be) particles behave, how the Greek gods behave (in the Greek view on reality), or how to perform a dance. Knowledge cannot be defined formally, although Knowledge of formal systems, of which math is the ultimate example, can be very useful, as in physics. Knowledge can be best defined in practice, or by giving lists. You like the formal approach?
Is there a difference between knowing and believing?
I’m not sure that I understand the “formal approach”
Capturing knowledge in a formal system. Like mQuoting Cidat
Yes. The objective truth though lies in the eye of the beholder, to relativize the matter. Though everyone will claim his perceived knowledge to be objective. I say the world was created in six days 6000 years ago, or maybe the gods in the sky did the job. It's also possible to claim the physics can do the job, though you can always ask were the stuff of the physical universe came from, even if it's infinite in spacetime extent. Can one ask the same about God?
I agree with you on this question. I think that it is possible for people to be wrong. I think that this is probably where mistakes come from. If you are basing your decisions on beliefs about the world, like someone who believed that sacrificing to Asclepius would bring health, and those beliefs turn out to be false then it’s probably the case that the desired outcome will not be produced. I don’t claim to have a panacea for all bad decisions but I do think that we can eliminate a large amount of mistakes.
Thank you for your kind words.
The most obvious way to check whether our choices make sense is to check them against the physical world as to whether the consequences of our choices are having the logical effect which was intended. Our perception in checking this out of course could be defective, the choice may have been a result in the first place of a misconception. One could be on the safe side and gather a consensus, as reality does seem to be appreciated as agreement. Even this method is not full proof and a lone opinion does not mean one is wrong, perhaps just unpopular.
-"How do we know that our choices make sense?
-They make sense to us...even if they are nonsensical.
I think that your answer makes sense but I wish you had given a good example of this method in action even if it was only hypothetical.