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? In other words is there a way to know in advance that we are making a mistake? Can we predict the results of our decisions in order to avoid unintended catastrophic consequences? — Average

This is a pristine example of overthinking. :sparkle:

This is a pristine example of overthinking. — Wheatley

I suppose it’s possible.

Can you think of an example where this would be the case? I think that it might enable me to understand your ideas. — Average

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.

Or just any action that constitutes what in hindsight and with greater knowledge could be called a 'mistake'. — Outlander

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.

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. — Average

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.

Why do you feel such a need to be correct and successful in everything you do. — Outlander

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.

Actually there's plenty of reason to think they wouldn't bother to find out what's best. — Srap Tasmaner

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.

Probably because they think that they already know what is best — Average

Well, no.

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 — Average

Of course not. The issue is optimization vs satisficing.

The issue is optimization vs satisficing. — Srap Tasmaner

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.

Well, no. — Srap Tasmaner

If I’m wrong then please share the correct conclusion with me.

Satisficing—a combination of the words “satisfy” and “suffice”—means settling for a less-than-perfect solution when working with limited information. Optimizing involves collecting as much data as possible and trying to find the optimal choice.

I’m still not sure how these concepts are connected to the discussion. How are they relevant?

people believe they are doing what is best when they select some solution to their problems — Average

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.

Thomas Edison's teachers once said and I quote he was "too stupid to learn anything". And yet, though I'd like to believe they were hardcore theists who knew the values of candle-lit living rather the arrogance and expectations that would come with the conveniences of incandescent lighting, we are nonetheless left with this quote. “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

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.

Are you smarter than Thomas Edison? — Outlander

I hope so

the answer is quite simple. Trial and error. — Outlander

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.

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. — Outlander

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

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? — Average

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).

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. — 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?

1. Do our choices make sense?
In other words, are there reasons behind our decisions?

A man always has two reasons for doing anything: a good reason and the real reason. — J. P. Morgan

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.

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. — Outlander

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.

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. — Average

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.

As you've alluded to we have references and reasonable enough claims, at least in comparison to others. Nothing more. Nothing less. — Outlander

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.

I think we can do better than references and reasonable claims especially when it comes to important life or death questions. — Average

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.

Well then by all means, the floor is yours. — Outlander

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.

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? In other words is there a way to know in advance that we are making a mistake? Can we predict the results of our decisions in order to avoid unintended catastrophic consequences? — Average

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.

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. — Cabbage Farmer

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.

How do we determine if we are right or wrong? How can we be certain that our actions are actually beneficial and not counterproductive? — Average

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.

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. — Average

I've yet to catch wind of the difference you suggest.

"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.

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. — Average

In 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've yet to see what problem you're trying to articulate. — Cabbage Farmer

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.