(possibly unwittingly) — Tom Storm

I was not trying to slander anyone with disabilities. I am actually inspired by people with disabilities when they persevere in spite of the adversity fortune saw fit to impose upon them.

The point I was making is that the question 'who' may not be as informative as 'what'. That's the shift I recommended. — Tom Storm

Can you provide some more clarification and elaboration because I don't want this discussion to devolve into something primitive.

Here too I'm afraid. — Tom Storm

lol

My initial response would be shifting the question from 'how do we know if someone' to 'what is a genius' and 'what is a mental midget'. I'm assuming you seek to differentiate between those people who are unlearned from those with intellectual disabilities? — Tom Storm

I have a lot of sympathy for people with cognitive disabilities and I have no intention of slandering them. shifting the question is unnecessary because the question "What is a genius?" is almost identical to the question "what is intelligence?". I suspect that a genius would be one with a great deal intelligence but in order to recognize a genius I think that we would first need to know what intelligence is.

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. You seem to think that I might benefit from a google search but I suspect that I'd get bogged down in a lot of useless irrelevant information.

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. — boagie

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.

I guess no one is interested in this conversation

Hi Average!
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
We are excited you are here.
Enjoy your stay — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Thank you for your kind words.

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 — GraveItty

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.

You like the formal approach? — GraveItty

I’m not sure that I understand the “formal approach”

Knowledge is knowing. — GraveItty

Is there a difference between knowing and believing?

Every system has its own ways and forms of knowledge — GraveItty

Would you mind defining knowledge? That way we both know what we are referring to when we discuss it.

It's pretty simple. Different people have different views of reality and a knowledge in accordance with it. — Average

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.

Sure! Good idea. Though we must firstly choose a base system of knowledge. — GraveItty

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.

Choice isn't a technical phenomenon, it's a random phenomenon. — Varde

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.

Of course. — GraveItty

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.

It's not a general rule though in many cases one can only tell after the choice if the choice had made sense. — GraveItty

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.

Beforehand we can only guess. Àfterwards we know. — GraveItty

Would you mind telling me how you arrived at this conclusion?

Perhaps my own frailties or manifested malfeasances reflected back at me are what I see. I'd almost hope so. Almost. — Outlander

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 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. — Outlander

Sometimes I forget my point too so no worries. Thank you for endorsing this discussion, It really means a lot to me.

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. — Cabbage Farmer

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.

In what regard are these cases different? And what prevents them from being analyzed the way I've suggested? — Cabbage Farmer

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.

"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. — Cabbage Farmer

I agree

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are you smarter than Thomas Edison? — Outlander

I hope so

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.

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?

Well, no. — Srap Tasmaner

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is a pristine example of overthinking. — Wheatley

I suppose it’s possible.

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. — Outlander

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