| | Eliot:
Like others brought up, when you know the uncertainties, risks and error ranges of things like manufacturing processes, that is knowledge about them, not epistemological uncertainty.
This is illustrative, I think. By 'things like manufacturing processes' ... putting 12 sets of footprints on the Moon, building a steel plant, etc.... do you mean to distinguish the act of actually doing those things from the act of talking about doing those things from a great distance, in a meta-sense? As in a romantic work of fiction, or a purely academic sense?
Because it is only from a distance that one could think all such things are 'known', as in, knowledge. In the doing, there are, for sure, varying degrees of 'solidity' of knowledge. The process of achieving an always at risk outcome is often more akin to 'known to a degree sufficient to risk the action,' which often(I would never say always, given my bias) also includes an uncertain assessment of the associated reward/gain.
The calculation of (uncertain) uncertainty --in these domains-- aspires to be a science, and with reasonable care, can be achieved by anyone applying known principles.
But the assessment of risk/uncertainty weighed against uncertain reward is not deterministic; it is still an art, an attribute of individuals, who act as gatekeepers for further action. And the reality is, in large capital equipment projects, these are inevitably group influenced decisions. In Ayn Rand's romantic works of art, Rearden is a kind of a benevolent OneManBand dictator, but even he isn't actually pouring all that steel on his own, or daily running his research labs, the coke works, the smelters, the slab casters, the rolling mills, or the internal rail that connects all that, much less, the external rail that both feeds and feeds from all that. We fill in those blanks in her romanitc work of art and assume he's hired competent people who are daily assessing uncertainty and risk on his behalf, else he'd endlessly be tied down like Gulliver in Lilliput. In her romantic work of art-- written 90 miles away from any actual steel mill, running all that in a OneManBand fashion is possible by a guy who's got time to walk home from the mills at night, attend parties, and bone hot railroad executives on the side.
Rearden, in Rand's romantic work of art, was certain enough to act decisively; perhaps in some sense, that is not the same as 'absolute infallible certainty' -- which is what I think your point is. But her romantic characters are certainly intransigent in their confidence of their own abilities to be certain enough to act, or not. I don't sense any wiggle room in their certainty of their actions, and more importantly, any concerns about being regarded as 'frozen' in their thinking, for example, when a moocher brother-in-law shows up suggesting that Rearden loosen his vice like grip on 'his' mills.
So, perhaps this is me trying to integrate your idea of 'binary certainty' into my understanding of calculated and assessed uncertainty/risk; any one of us, on any given consideration of a future risk/reward action, is either 'certain enough to act, or not.'
I'm a big fan and admirer of Ayn Rand's romantic works of art...but some of her romantic art is truly precious. It is clear that she wrote what she wrote in an apartment in Manhattan, and not an actual steel mill in Pennsylvania.
But that is the proper function of romantic art. To inspire. To clarify. And even, to entertain.
Politics is an interesting human endeavor. It is not every human endeavor, however. I've voluntarily acceded a kind of dominion over my life to my wife and children, relative to perfect strangers. Our means of interacting are based on asking, and I will often accede to her simple request in instances where I would not to a perfect stranger. But 'asking' is a perfectly accepted and civil means of getting what we want from others. They might say 'no' -- that is the nature of asking. And if they are a loved one, the circumstances of their saying yes or now may not be the same as if they were a perfect stranger. But with our loved ones, 'asking' is the almost exclusive means of personal interaction.
Still, with perfect strangers, or mere acquaintances, 'asking' is still a perfectly civilly accepted form of polite interaction. It's just that, it isn't always sufficient to get what we want.
So we have commerce; the win-win exchange of value for value, in an almost anonymous fashion on the public commons. No asking involved; if we agree on a price, we get what we want from others. Polite and without conflict.
When either asking is insufficient, or commerce is not available to us, we have another accepted means: begging. Begging is beyond simply asking, and is also beyond commerce. It is an indication of stress or duress in the asking. It could even overlap with both 'asking' as well as 'commerce', but the act of begging begins to elevate the seriousness of the interaction. We accept begging, in that it is not an illegal or criminal activity.
And then there is the arena of politics, which in some fashion, overlaps all of these, but in this sense, I mean a restrictive definition of politics, as in, seeking redress through the action of the state and the application of state force, under the law, to get what we want from others. It is beyond asking. It is beyond commerce. It is beyond begging. It is, the direction of tribal force under some nominal set of rules, with the ability to force compliance.
And, when all of that is insufficient, eventually, there is crime, and eventually, war. A spectrum of civility describing the ways we get what we want from each other.
So to my point, finally; where does something like philosophy or religion fit into the above? In truth, at any point, as does in fact a broader meta-definition of politics, beyond the narrow definition above. But it is all -- all of our public and much of our private discourse-- ultimately about what we want from each other-- even when that is 'to be left alone,' and even when it is 'to live like God has told me we all must live.'
And so, to me real point; when so much of public discourse and debate is ultimately about what we want from each other, special focus must be given to any claim that there is something wrong with 'certainty' in the world, because accepting that premise is the Universal Solvent:
"Give me your life."
"No."
"Is it yours to keep?"
"Yes."
"How can you be certain about that or anything? Maybe it's really mine to take. Maybe that is what is best for you."
...followed by, nuanced discussions of rape but not really rape scenes in Rand's romantic works of art, or discussions about the S&M scene in certain parts of the world, and so, let's not be too hasty about this absolute abolitionist aversion to slavery thing, maybe under certain circumstances a little slavery is a good thing, we don't want to be infallible on the 'emotional' topic of human slavery...
I am certain of lots of thing (my assessment of rape, slavery, freedom) as well as this; in a free nation, not every topic imaginable is appropriate for consideration as a matter of public/tribal policy.
Not that that stops even our tribe from tolerating it.
regards,
Fred
|
|
