Logical Consistency and Decision Making

3min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

There's two different senses of the word rationality, even in philosophy. One is just purely consistency; you can think of it by analogy to logical consistency. If you believe that aliens have invaded your body, that might be perfectly consistent. But we think that's not a good belief to have. It almost sounds like something where if you don't think about it too hard, you might get the idea that no one should disagree about this.

Life is rich with moments of uncertainty, where we’re not exactly sure what’s going to happen next. We often find ourselves in situations where we have to choose between different kinds of uncertainty; maybe one option is very likely to have a “pretty good” outcome, while another has some probability for “great” and some for “truly awful.” In such circumstances, what’s the rational way to choose? Is it rational to go to great lengths to avoid choices where the worst outcome is very bad? Lara Buchak argues that it is, thereby expanding and generalizing the usual rules of rational choice in conditions of risk.

Support Mindscape on Patreon.

Lara Buchak received a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University. She is currently a professor of philosophy at Princeton. Her research interests include decision theory, social choice theory, epistemology, ethics, and the philosophy of religion. She was the inaugural winner of the Alvin Plantinga Prize of the American Philosophical Association. Her book Risk and Rationality proposes a new way of dealing with risk in rational-choice theory.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.