How can we make these decisions outside the highly specific situations where (by the nature of the thought experiment) results and probabilities are known?
In real life, humans oftentimes don’t know what are the possible consequences of an action (e.g. supporting a political candidate and them not governing according to stated policies), or the probabilities of a consequence occurring (e.g. what is the probability my new partner is offended or entertained by my edgy joke), or even that they are making a decision (e.g. a fat person who oftentimes stress-eats without thinking).
In explicit material, I agree with the post, but it is the practicality of reasoning in such a way that worries me.
Adding to that, to me it seems intuitive that when humans are uncertain, that is some deep heuristic screaming about how something isn’t right with the situation at hand, warranting more humility and thinking about it.
In the end, how do these contents interact with epistemic humility to guide human behavior in practice?
How can we make these decisions outside the highly specific situations where (by the nature of the thought experiment) results and probabilities are known?
In real life, humans oftentimes don’t know what are the possible consequences of an action (e.g. supporting a political candidate and them not governing according to stated policies), or the probabilities of a consequence occurring (e.g. what is the probability my new partner is offended or entertained by my edgy joke), or even that they are making a decision (e.g. a fat person who oftentimes stress-eats without thinking).
In explicit material, I agree with the post, but it is the practicality of reasoning in such a way that worries me.
Adding to that, to me it seems intuitive that when humans are uncertain, that is some deep heuristic screaming about how something isn’t right with the situation at hand, warranting more humility and thinking about it.
In the end, how do these contents interact with epistemic humility to guide human behavior in practice?