Thanks! I unfortunately donāt have time to engage fully with this thread going forward, but briefly:
To be clear, I donāt share Karnofskyās overall framework. Iām skeptical of the āregression to normalityā criterion myself. (And I donāt find his model of the problem behind Pascalās mugging probabilities compelling, since he still uses precise estimates.)
In the Pascalās mugging case, I think people have some fuzzy sense that the muggerās claim is made-up, which can be more carefully operationalized with imprecise credences. But if we canāt even point to what our āthis is absurdā reaction is about, and are instead merely asserting that our pretheoretic sense should dictate our decisions, Iām more skeptical. Especially when weāre embracing an ethical principle most people would consider absurd (impartial altruism).
Thanks! I unfortunately donāt have time to engage fully with this thread going forward, but briefly:
To be clear, I donāt share Karnofskyās overall framework. Iām skeptical of the āregression to normalityā criterion myself. (And I donāt find his model of the problem behind Pascalās mugging probabilities compelling, since he still uses precise estimates.)
In the Pascalās mugging case, I think people have some fuzzy sense that the muggerās claim is made-up, which can be more carefully operationalized with imprecise credences. But if we canāt even point to what our āthis is absurdā reaction is about, and are instead merely asserting that our pretheoretic sense should dictate our decisions, Iām more skeptical. Especially when weāre embracing an ethical principle most people would consider absurd (impartial altruism).