As a convinced Knightian/ Keynesian on risk and uncertainty, and someone who thinks stories are a hugely important part of how we understand things, your post gives me a double sense of confirmation. Which is perhaps either unbearably dogmatic or itself vindication of what you say.
Great idea for SF novels not being written, I have a few too, but I don't see how narratives as we know them would even exists where an animal logic of causation does not exist. Logic is a hindsight. And as the Roman's said, truth is the daughter of time, so why bother finding/investigating guilt/credit/blame/reasons/ratio/closure.
You could assign (1) to lack of plausibility (US standard for dismissing a complaint on the pleadings, although technically it is not the same as “makes no sense”) and (2) to the standard to survive summary judgment and get to a jury in a civil case (a reasonable jury could accept this version of events).
I like this. I’ve always found attempts to quantify legal standards of proof maddeningly meaningless (barring “preponderance of the evidence”, which does work as a better than 50% chance).
As a convinced Knightian/ Keynesian on risk and uncertainty, and someone who thinks stories are a hugely important part of how we understand things, your post gives me a double sense of confirmation. Which is perhaps either unbearably dogmatic or itself vindication of what you say.
Yes, narrative plausibility is why the Linda problem in behavioral economics is so misleading and actually a set up.
I hadn't thought of that but, yes, what a great point
I like the idea for the novel
Great idea for SF novels not being written, I have a few too, but I don't see how narratives as we know them would even exists where an animal logic of causation does not exist. Logic is a hindsight. And as the Roman's said, truth is the daughter of time, so why bother finding/investigating guilt/credit/blame/reasons/ratio/closure.
You could assign (1) to lack of plausibility (US standard for dismissing a complaint on the pleadings, although technically it is not the same as “makes no sense”) and (2) to the standard to survive summary judgment and get to a jury in a civil case (a reasonable jury could accept this version of events).
I like this. I’ve always found attempts to quantify legal standards of proof maddeningly meaningless (barring “preponderance of the evidence”, which does work as a better than 50% chance).