Sherlock Holmes famously had another characteristic which you touch on at the end - he was also unemotional. Of all his traits, this was the one that struck me as least human. This, I guess, is in line with the versions created in Star Trek through Dr Spock (alien) and data (machine).
The logic path you describe - creativity and then testing - has obvious attractions. But many of our decisions as humans (and as human societies) can not be tested. Counterfactuals are often impossible to construct and many of our actions are one offs. Even the choice of a restaurant can not be truly 'tested' in the scientific way.
One of the underlying questions that arise for me is the extent to which the need for humility is driven by preference change (which has a strong emotional element). Human beings change their preferences constantly (counter to simple forms of economic theory) and contextually. What is desirable today is not desirable tomorrow. While it is arguable this flows from the type of increased knowledge you discuss, I see no compelling evidence of a tight causal connection. While I accept that this might be due to complexity masking the relationship, I suspect the relationship between knowledge and desire varies a lot across decision making continuum.
The importance of this, I think, comes into play when understanding / knowledge is linked to changing preferences of what is better (not just what is). Your restaurant example is a case of trying to determine what is better in the context of non-static preferences which drive the lived experience. In these cases, there is no truth because there can not be a single truth.
I'd agree there often isn't a tight connection between knowledge and preference - and that typically fine (e.g. restaurant choice) so long as we aren't trying to pretend our preference is objectively justified.
I think we very often use the 'creativity->test' logic in making decisions (even if we can test later whether it was a good decision) but we also use it in forming knowledge. In that sense, discovering knowledge is quite a similar process to making a decision - we make a judgement as to whether something is (or seems) true. Perhaps that means scientific research is really just a very rigorous and pedantic decision making process that applies in certain circumstances.
Sherlock Holmes famously had another characteristic which you touch on at the end - he was also unemotional. Of all his traits, this was the one that struck me as least human. This, I guess, is in line with the versions created in Star Trek through Dr Spock (alien) and data (machine).
The logic path you describe - creativity and then testing - has obvious attractions. But many of our decisions as humans (and as human societies) can not be tested. Counterfactuals are often impossible to construct and many of our actions are one offs. Even the choice of a restaurant can not be truly 'tested' in the scientific way.
One of the underlying questions that arise for me is the extent to which the need for humility is driven by preference change (which has a strong emotional element). Human beings change their preferences constantly (counter to simple forms of economic theory) and contextually. What is desirable today is not desirable tomorrow. While it is arguable this flows from the type of increased knowledge you discuss, I see no compelling evidence of a tight causal connection. While I accept that this might be due to complexity masking the relationship, I suspect the relationship between knowledge and desire varies a lot across decision making continuum.
The importance of this, I think, comes into play when understanding / knowledge is linked to changing preferences of what is better (not just what is). Your restaurant example is a case of trying to determine what is better in the context of non-static preferences which drive the lived experience. In these cases, there is no truth because there can not be a single truth.
Better stop now. My brain hurts. Over to you.
I'd agree there often isn't a tight connection between knowledge and preference - and that typically fine (e.g. restaurant choice) so long as we aren't trying to pretend our preference is objectively justified.
I think we very often use the 'creativity->test' logic in making decisions (even if we can test later whether it was a good decision) but we also use it in forming knowledge. In that sense, discovering knowledge is quite a similar process to making a decision - we make a judgement as to whether something is (or seems) true. Perhaps that means scientific research is really just a very rigorous and pedantic decision making process that applies in certain circumstances.