Love it. This draws a number of things together rather neatly.
Reading it led me to envisage two connected operating systems - a knowledge system and a decision/action system. The starting point of the knowledge system is a question mark, which only sometimes resolves into a + or a - (and then often only contextually, such as the operation of the earth's gravitational pull).
The starting point of the decision/action system is also a question mark. But, unlike the knowledge system which is designed to remain a ? unless our knowledge of reality dictates otherwise, this system requires a + or - answer. That is, the question must be resolved.
One way of bridging the gap between the two systems is to be more easily convinced about how much is knowable and true (epistemic certainty). This allows the knowledge and decisions systems to align, to provide decision-making certainty. Such certainty is, according to the world of epistemic humility, will often be falsely based as it is predicated on the wrong approach to gaining knowledge.
The practical problem with this wrongness is that those who fall into its trap are unable to tolerate any other possibility at the knowledge level, and often at the decision level.
Bridging the knowledge-decision gap in the world of epistemic humility effectively requires some form of accepted heuristic. This means that knowledge the decision system bases action on may not be true, but what is believed holds well enough for the decision to be valid. This, in my view, is what is happening in your birthday example. Having knowledge of time has proved very difficult. In response, humans have created an artificial model of time which is commonly understood. Provided humans use this model in a consistent way, the deeper knowledge problem is resolved even if it is not solved.
The great advantage of this system is that it prevents categorical statements of truth forming when they are not justified. This, in turn, would hopefully create greater tolerance and understanding in the uncertain processes of human decision making that would lead to world peace and infinite leisure time for all.
Really nice point about the artificial model of time that creates a common framework to help us work in.
And I think the idea of two connected systems is very useful. In my view the decision/action system works better when it gets a more sophisticated set of outputs from the knowledge system that just +,- or maybe ?. For example, if I'm deciding what clothes to pack for a trip, I want to know what the weather is going to be like, but also how much uncertainty is involved. I'll pack differently depending on whether it is definitely doing to be hot and sunny vs going to be raining vs unsettled and likely a mix of different weather.
So ideally the knowledge system should pass on both an answer but also a level of confidence around the answer (or the range of likely correct answers if we aren't sure) and we can use that for a decision.
But the decision/action system is far simpler and easier, especially in organisations, if we simply have a + or -. And that convenience leads us to hope/expect/demand greater confidence or certainty out of the knowledge systems.
Love it. This draws a number of things together rather neatly.
Reading it led me to envisage two connected operating systems - a knowledge system and a decision/action system. The starting point of the knowledge system is a question mark, which only sometimes resolves into a + or a - (and then often only contextually, such as the operation of the earth's gravitational pull).
The starting point of the decision/action system is also a question mark. But, unlike the knowledge system which is designed to remain a ? unless our knowledge of reality dictates otherwise, this system requires a + or - answer. That is, the question must be resolved.
One way of bridging the gap between the two systems is to be more easily convinced about how much is knowable and true (epistemic certainty). This allows the knowledge and decisions systems to align, to provide decision-making certainty. Such certainty is, according to the world of epistemic humility, will often be falsely based as it is predicated on the wrong approach to gaining knowledge.
The practical problem with this wrongness is that those who fall into its trap are unable to tolerate any other possibility at the knowledge level, and often at the decision level.
Bridging the knowledge-decision gap in the world of epistemic humility effectively requires some form of accepted heuristic. This means that knowledge the decision system bases action on may not be true, but what is believed holds well enough for the decision to be valid. This, in my view, is what is happening in your birthday example. Having knowledge of time has proved very difficult. In response, humans have created an artificial model of time which is commonly understood. Provided humans use this model in a consistent way, the deeper knowledge problem is resolved even if it is not solved.
The great advantage of this system is that it prevents categorical statements of truth forming when they are not justified. This, in turn, would hopefully create greater tolerance and understanding in the uncertain processes of human decision making that would lead to world peace and infinite leisure time for all.
Really nice point about the artificial model of time that creates a common framework to help us work in.
And I think the idea of two connected systems is very useful. In my view the decision/action system works better when it gets a more sophisticated set of outputs from the knowledge system that just +,- or maybe ?. For example, if I'm deciding what clothes to pack for a trip, I want to know what the weather is going to be like, but also how much uncertainty is involved. I'll pack differently depending on whether it is definitely doing to be hot and sunny vs going to be raining vs unsettled and likely a mix of different weather.
So ideally the knowledge system should pass on both an answer but also a level of confidence around the answer (or the range of likely correct answers if we aren't sure) and we can use that for a decision.
But the decision/action system is far simpler and easier, especially in organisations, if we simply have a + or -. And that convenience leads us to hope/expect/demand greater confidence or certainty out of the knowledge systems.