Abstract
A key assumption underlying analyses of risk is that analyzing risks helps generate justified beliefs about risks. Hence, by analyzing risks, we become wiser in our dealings with risks. However, what exactly is it to have a justified belief, and, moreover, is proper justification of risk beliefs within reach? These probing questions are the topics of this article in which two different perspectives on the justification for risk beliefs are examined, labeled epistemic and pragmatic justification. While epistemic justification amounts to showing that risk beliefs signify knowledge, pragmatic justification amounts to showing that risk beliefs serve as useful signposts for how to act. Arguably, much of the difficulty of providing a cogent basis for risk analysis originates from our conception of justification as only meaning epistemic justification, with this making us ignorant of the pragmatic route to justification. A point advanced in this article is that the chances of justification will be significantly improved by a broadening of perspective to include epistemic as well as pragmatic justification of risk beliefs.
Highlights
Why analyze risk? The obvious answer to this highly pertinent question is that risk analysis makes us better off
Tempting as it may be to skip the truth condition, and to favor a pared-back justified-belief account of knowledge, this strategy to preserve the epistemological virtues of risk analysis raises the problem of construing knowledge by appealing to a knowledge condition that in itself is in need of further support to be genuinely supportive
We clearly prefer the most justified belief, weaker concepts of knowledge fail to identify the reasonableness of such a choice once both of the beliefs have been granted the status of knowledge
Summary
Why analyze risk? The obvious answer to this highly pertinent question is that risk analysis makes us better off. Cognitive psychologists disagree with the standard portrayal of humans as rational beings who choose the best course of action on the basis of a well-ordered set of desires and beliefs From their point of view, the tenet of rationality is nothing but an ideal construct; it provides a norm for how to act that does not explain how humans do act. Taleb has strong views on the issue, he makes hardly any serious attempts to clarify them He instead keeps on telling us how the impossibility of analyzing risks derives from the insurmountable problem of generating justifiable beliefs about them. The strategy for refuting skeptics like Taleb will be to demonstrate that knowledge is still within reach Such a line of defense may take different forms, the guiding idea is that risk analysis is a knowledge-producing activity in which the acceptance of a belief results from the fact that the belief signifies knowledge. We are opting for the standard needed for the reasonableness of the beliefs to be accepted
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
