One of the Basic Questions of Philosophy? - Page 5

tek · #1 08-15-2005, 01:18 PM

Being right seems to be important to you. You've explicely stated in many posts that anyone who disagrees with your topic is wrong.

So now you are hedging your bets by stating: "My answer is an in between one which I will get into later."

#2 08-16-2005, 07:49 PM

Shelly Taylor's research on what she calls "Positive Illusions" clearly show that being over-optimistic (and thus, by definition, incorrect) can be very beneficial. In her seminal work, she showed that cancer patients who had a greatly inflated perceived chance of survival showed better survival rates than those with more realistic assessments. This certainly makes sense both in terms of how these groups handled stress/emotions, which effects health outcomes, and also because those who were more optimistic were more likely to engage in behaviors that could be potentially helpful to their chances (whereas if I think I'm doomed, why bother trying?). Her work has been extended to other cases, such as the psychological recovery of rape victims, and rates of remissions in former cancer patients. Her work has been very influential among psychologists and health practitioners, and I think it clearly answers the question posed here.

David Sklansky · #3 08-17-2005, 03:18 AM

It doesn't "clearly" answer the question. It only does if living longer with incorrect knowledge of cancer is worth more to you than living less long with correct knowledge. Granted most people would opt for that. But what about if the subject is of great importance and the downside of knowing it correctly is small? Should satisfaction in knowing the right answer make the downside worth it?

PairTheBoard · #4 08-17-2005, 04:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
DS --
But what about if the subject is of great importance and the downside of knowing it correctly is small? Should satisfaction in knowing the right answer make the downside worth it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have an example in mind? It seems like if the subject is of great importance then it would be of great importance to know the truth about it.

On the cancer example. If the doctors withhold the truth from you under the theory that it will help your chances that's one thing. And it doesn't seem too philisophically deep to me.

But say you know your chances are 5% and you believe that to be the best estimate. You might still Choose to believe that You are going to survive. In other words you say, I believe I'm going to be in that 5% category. I believe I'm going to beat the odds. I don't see that as deceiving yourself as to the truth. You accept the truth of the situation but you Choose Optimism.

It's like the salesman who knows he only closes 20% of his sales. Yet he psyches himself up into believing that he IS going to make THIS particular sale. It's a psychological technique that successful salespeople commonly use. It works great in sales but can be a disaster in gambling.

Either way, I don't see the deep Philisophical Issue here. Psychological yes. But not philosophical.

PairTheBoard

David Sklansky · #5 08-17-2005, 05:44 AM

"But say you know your chances are 5% and you believe that to be the best estimate. You might still Choose to believe that You are going to survive. In other words you say, I believe I'm going to be in that 5% category. I believe I'm going to beat the odds. I don't see that as deceiving yourself as to the truth. You accept the truth of the situation but you Choose Optimism."

Although I am not sure you can "believe" you will be one of the survivors, if you simultaneously "know" that your chances are 5%, I'd like to point out that a similar attitude toward specific religious beliefs would not arouse my ire. I also think most religious people actually have such an attitude. But they won't admit it.

PairTheBoard · #6 08-17-2005, 06:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"But say you know your chances are 5% and you believe that to be the best estimate. You might still Choose to believe that You are going to survive. In other words you say, I believe I'm going to be in that 5% category. I believe I'm going to beat the odds. I don't see that as deceiving yourself as to the truth. You accept the truth of the situation but you Choose Optimism."

Although I am not sure you can "believe" you will be one of the survivors, if you simultaneously "know" that your chances are 5%, I'd like to point out that a similar attitude toward specific religious beliefs would not arouse my ire. I also think most religious people actually have such an attitude. But they won't admit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've never worked in Sales have you David?

PairTheBoard

David Sklansky · #7 08-17-2005, 05:49 AM

What about the debate over whether to spend fifty billion to build a super collider that would tell us secrets about subatomic particles that can't conceivably help us for many generations at the least? Is kmowing those secrets an end in itself?

PairTheBoard · #8 08-17-2005, 06:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What about the debate over whether to spend fifty billion to build a super collider that would tell us secrets about subatomic particles that can't conceivably help us for many generations at the least? Is kmowing those secrets an end in itself?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is an end in itself. Is it worth $50 billion? What do you think? There's a lot of ends the money could be spent on, some of them just ends in themselves. Why so much on that particular one? Would it be worth doing if it could be done for $50? Maybe 20 years from now it could be done for $1 billion. What does any of this have to do with philosophy?

PairTheBoard