(Untitled)

[foxe]

today's words:

54 / 1000 words. 5% done!

That's not very many, but I have been busy thinking thoughts...

total words:

1130 / 5000 words. 23% done

Comments

[daemon_will]

It is rational, because the minimum risk lies in that which we know. It is also instinctive, as you mention above; the immediate dangers to early Man trying something new have been replaced by the less tangible but no less important modern risks of financial or scientifically harmful damage. Nevertheless, what characterises progress is our ability to overcome that rational preference in the hope of something better - and of course, sometimes the unknown risks materialise. Look at the early researchers into medical and other uses of radioactive materials, who later developed cancers. The saying 'no risk, no reward' (or even worse, 'no pain, no gain') comes from experience.

The construction industry is inherently risk averse. We don't like trying new things; our position is not scientific research, it's to build things on time and to budget, SAFELY. If we can find a quicker way to do it cheaper and just as safely or more so, we would - but only if you could show us it's possible. But if it's new, you've nothing to show us.

While this is a little outside my area, I think this is also why scientific research needs to have suitable funding. Moving away from the usual arguments about the sponsor's desired findings (and slowly back to the question originally posted), there is a risk in research that a fuzzy perceived return may not be realised. Who is going to fund the research into 'currently pointless Technology X', and who knows whether it will remain pointless?

As for harm being worse than benefit being good - maybe it's a selfish impulse? Our personalities are wired for survival and if we are ticking over just fine, we are more likely to be upset by a harm than improved by a benefit. Trying to think of an example, I find it easier to think of potential harms than potential benefits - maybe that's the issue? I'm a pessimist!

[foxe]

the minimum risk lies in that which we know

I do not think this is always true!

But yes it is instinctive -- in fact I keep meaning to investigate the idea that aversion to novelty and repugnance as a reaction to rotting food, both evolutionarily favoured strategies, are associated with the evolutionary origins of morality; lends a whole new meaning to "olfactory moral reasoning"! As I always point out, however, just because something is evolutionarily favourable doesn't mean it's morally correct. Now that we have evolved to be moral agents, we can separate morality from its evolutionary origins. Case in point: it's evolutionarily favourable for men to cheat on their wives as long as they can get away with it, but we don't (usually) regard it as morally acceptable.

Decision-making in the context of specific areas with particular parameters, like the construction industry, may follow different rules -- though whether these are different procedural rules or different (I think this is right?) epistemic rules is another matter: are you inherently more risk-averse, or is it that the harm of eg running over time or over budget is assigned a greater badness value because of the context? You are right, construction =/= scientific research.

I've actually found a (58 page!! D:) article that discusses people's preferences and intuitions vis-a-vis the precautionary principle... now I just have to get round to reading it...