Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Aligning with nature's 'usual purpose' systematically ignores variance and tail risks that a rational agent is obligated to consider (Savage, Foundations of Statistics).

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Savage's framework assumes agents can meaningfully quantify probabilities for genuinely unprecedented events; tail risks often lack the data needed for rational assignment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.'Natural purpose' heuristics evolved precisely because they perform well under uncertainty and resource constraints that Savage's idealized rationality doesn't account for.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Obsessive tail-risk focus creates its own pathology: paralysis, over-hedging, and opportunity costs that systematic attention to variance doesn't minimize.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Savage's expected utility theory requires rational agents to assign probabilities to all outcomes, including rare events that 'natural purpose' frameworks typically exclude.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Black swan events (financial crashes, pandemics, ecological collapse) have historically imposed massive costs precisely because decision-makers ignored tail risks in favor of baseline assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Normative alignment with 'usual purpose' is descriptively conservative but epistemically unjustified: low probability doesn't entail rational neglect if expected disvalue is high.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.