Dealing with uncertainty

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS
M. Douglas
{"title":"Dealing with uncertainty","authors":"M. Douglas","doi":"10.2143/EP.8.3.583185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In C.S. Lewis's science fiction parable Perelandra was a planet which had no solid ground. At all times the floating landscape was continually swirling and moving, chasms would appear where a minute before there had been safe standing. The rational beings who lived there hopped nimbly on to another little island when the one on which they stood disappeared under their feet. They were used to it and took it for granted that nothing was certain. The visitor from our planet had to learn a completely new way of existence. But where did he get his idea of certainty in a fixed environment? It is more plausible that uncertainty is normal and the whole idea of certainty an illusion. Today gives an opportunity to reflect on how people deal with skepticism, doubt and uncertainty. The questions apply to a current debate in the UK on risk. Opinion polls constantly reveal that the public lacks trust in government, and particularly it does not trust the government to reveal the information needed to assess important risks. From which the risk analysts conclude that the government should grant access to information more freely and encourage enquiry. They believe that openness would foster a better understanding on the part of the public which at present does not know what to believe. More information would create certainty, more certainty and the public would trust its spokesmen, unreasonable fears would be calmed. This is the advice of an expert enquiry. Certainty is not a mood, or a feeling, it is an institution: this is my thesis. Certainty is only possible because doubt is blocked institutionally: most individual decisions about risk are taken under pressure from institutions. If we recognize more uncertainty now, it will be because of things that have happened to the institutional underpinning of our beliefs. And that is what we ought to be studying. In my student days the hottest controversies in anthropology were about why `other people' — that is people not living in advanced capitalist society — had certainty about their absurd beliefs. When trying to explain their misfortunes, why did they neglect the physical and scientific evidence, and draw instead on their beliefs in spirits, magic, and taboos? How could they be so obstinate in error? Anthropologists spent their energies on defending the allegedly irrational beliefs of other people, and I shall continue the tradition.","PeriodicalId":54109,"journal":{"name":"Ethical Perspectives","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2001-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2143/EP.8.3.583185","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethical Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2143/EP.8.3.583185","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

In C.S. Lewis's science fiction parable Perelandra was a planet which had no solid ground. At all times the floating landscape was continually swirling and moving, chasms would appear where a minute before there had been safe standing. The rational beings who lived there hopped nimbly on to another little island when the one on which they stood disappeared under their feet. They were used to it and took it for granted that nothing was certain. The visitor from our planet had to learn a completely new way of existence. But where did he get his idea of certainty in a fixed environment? It is more plausible that uncertainty is normal and the whole idea of certainty an illusion. Today gives an opportunity to reflect on how people deal with skepticism, doubt and uncertainty. The questions apply to a current debate in the UK on risk. Opinion polls constantly reveal that the public lacks trust in government, and particularly it does not trust the government to reveal the information needed to assess important risks. From which the risk analysts conclude that the government should grant access to information more freely and encourage enquiry. They believe that openness would foster a better understanding on the part of the public which at present does not know what to believe. More information would create certainty, more certainty and the public would trust its spokesmen, unreasonable fears would be calmed. This is the advice of an expert enquiry. Certainty is not a mood, or a feeling, it is an institution: this is my thesis. Certainty is only possible because doubt is blocked institutionally: most individual decisions about risk are taken under pressure from institutions. If we recognize more uncertainty now, it will be because of things that have happened to the institutional underpinning of our beliefs. And that is what we ought to be studying. In my student days the hottest controversies in anthropology were about why `other people' — that is people not living in advanced capitalist society — had certainty about their absurd beliefs. When trying to explain their misfortunes, why did they neglect the physical and scientific evidence, and draw instead on their beliefs in spirits, magic, and taboos? How could they be so obstinate in error? Anthropologists spent their energies on defending the allegedly irrational beliefs of other people, and I shall continue the tradition.
处理不确定性
在C.S.刘易斯的科幻小说寓言中,佩雷兰德拉是一个没有坚实地面的星球。在任何时候,漂浮的风景都在不停地旋转和移动,在一分钟前还安全站立的地方会出现裂缝。当他们站立的小岛消失在他们的脚下时,住在那里的理性生物敏捷地跳到另一个小岛上。他们习惯了,认为没有什么是肯定的,这是理所当然的。来自我们星球的访客必须学习一种全新的生存方式。但是,在固定的环境中,他的确定性观念是从哪里来的呢?更合理的说法是,不确定性是正常的,而确定性的整个概念是一种幻觉。今天让我们有机会反思人们是如何应对怀疑、怀疑和不确定性的。这些问题适用于英国当前一场关于风险的辩论。民意调查不断显示,公众对政府缺乏信任,尤其是不相信政府会披露评估重要风险所需的信息。由此,风险分析师得出结论,政府应该允许更自由地获取信息,并鼓励调查。他们相信,公开会使目前不知道该相信什么的公众更好地理解。更多的信息会产生确定性,更多的确定性公众会信任其发言人,不合理的恐惧就会平息。这是专家咨询的建议。确定性不是一种情绪或感觉,它是一种制度:这就是我的论文。确定性之所以成为可能,是因为怀疑在制度上受到了阻碍:大多数关于风险的个人决定都是在机构的压力下做出的。如果我们现在认识到更多的不确定性,那将是因为我们信念的制度基础发生了变化。这就是我们应该研究的。在我的学生时代,人类学中最激烈的争论是关于为什么“其他人”——即那些没有生活在发达资本主义社会的人——对他们荒谬的信仰有确定性。当试图解释他们的不幸时,为什么他们忽视了物理和科学证据,而是利用他们对灵魂、魔法和禁忌的信仰?他们怎么能如此固执地犯错误呢?人类学家把他们的精力花在为其他人所谓的非理性信仰辩护上,我将继续这一传统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信