I think I agree with everything youāve said there, except that Iād prefer to stay away from the term āKnightianā, as it seems to be so often taken to refer to an absolute, binary distinction. It seems you wouldnāt endorse that binary distinction yourself, given that you say āKnightian-ishā, and that in your post you write:
we donāt need to assume a strict dichotomy separates quantifiable risks from unquantifiable risks. Instead, real-world uncertainty falls on something like a spectrum.
But I think, whatever oneās own intentions, the term āKnightianā sneaks in a lot of baggage and connotations. And on top of that, the term is interpreted in so many different ways by different people. For example, I happened to have recently seen events very similar to those you contrasted against cases of Knightian-ish uncertainty used as examples to explain the concept of Knightian uncertainty (in this paper):
Finally, there are situations with so many unique features that they can hardly be grouped with similar cases, such as the danger resulting from a new type of virus, or the consequences of military intervention in conflict areas. These represent cases of (Knightian) uncertainty where no data are available to estimate objective probabilities. While we may rely on our subjective estimates under such conditions, no objective basis exists by which to judge them (e.g., LeRoy & Singell, 1987). (emphasis added)
So I see the term āKnightianā as introducing more confusion than itās worth, and Iād prefer to only use it if I also give caveats to that effect, or to highlight the confusions it causes. Typically, Iād prefer to rely instead on terms like more or lessresilient, precise, or (your term) hazy probabilities/ācredences. (I collected various terms that can be used for this sort of idea here.)
[I know this comment is very late to the party, but Iām working on some posts about the idea of a risk-uncertainty distinction, and was re-reading your post to help inform that.]
I think I agree with everything youāve said there, except that Iād prefer to stay away from the term āKnightianā, as it seems to be so often taken to refer to an absolute, binary distinction. It seems you wouldnāt endorse that binary distinction yourself, given that you say āKnightian-ishā, and that in your post you write:
But I think, whatever oneās own intentions, the term āKnightianā sneaks in a lot of baggage and connotations. And on top of that, the term is interpreted in so many different ways by different people. For example, I happened to have recently seen events very similar to those you contrasted against cases of Knightian-ish uncertainty used as examples to explain the concept of Knightian uncertainty (in this paper):
So I see the term āKnightianā as introducing more confusion than itās worth, and Iād prefer to only use it if I also give caveats to that effect, or to highlight the confusions it causes. Typically, Iād prefer to rely instead on terms like more or less resilient, precise, or (your term) hazy probabilities/ācredences. (I collected various terms that can be used for this sort of idea here.)
[I know this comment is very late to the party, but Iām working on some posts about the idea of a risk-uncertainty distinction, and was re-reading your post to help inform that.]