4 ms·

>And you do that, IMO, by attaching punishments to actual harm, not to an increased likelihood of harm (which must always be an estimate only). If you restrict

>And you do that, IMO, by attaching punishments to actual harm, not to an increased likelihood of harm (which must always be an estimate only). If you restrict the basis of decision-making to certainty rather than "estimated likelihood", you would have to throw out pretty much everything mankind has ever learned using the scientific method (where evidence can support, or inrease the likelihood of a theory, but never prove it). For example, the link between smoking and lung cancer. It's impossible to say of any specific case of lung cancer that it was definitely caused by smoking, but there is enough evidence for increased risk, so that deciding to quit based only on a likelihood is a reasonable thing to do. >the legislator who drafts the speeding laws and the bureaucrat who sets the speed limits for particular roads can't possibly know as much as the driver In the case of speed traps, that's irrelevant; the limits there are not abnormally low because the legislators and bureaucrats are using unsound information, but because they intentionally ignore (or don't even bother acquiring) recommendations which indicate that a higher speed would be safe.

pdonis 13y ago
If you restrict the basis of decision-making to certainty rather than "estimated likelihood" That's not what I said. I said that the law should not be able to impose punishment based on likelihood of harm, only based on actual harm. That has nothing to do with whether or not people should take into account likelihood of harm when making their own decisions; of course they should. the limits there are not abnormally low because the legislators and bureaucrats are using unsound information, but because they intentionally ignore (or don't even bother acquiring) recommendations which indicate that a higher speed would be safe Which is exactly what I have said elsewhere in these posts. In what you quoted, I was only pointing out that in fact, even if the legislators and bureaucrats were trying to set the "right" speed limits; they can't, because they can't possibly have all the relevant information. So the common belief that the legislators and bureaucrats are "helping to keep the roads safe" by setting speed limits is wrong in two ways: (1) that's not their real motivation; and (2) they're not capable of doing it anyway.

pdonis 13y ago

If you restrict the basis of decision-making to certainty rather than "estimated likelihood" That's not what I said. I said that the law should not be able to impose punishment based on likelihood of harm, only based on actual harm. That has nothing to do with whether or not people should take into account likelihood of harm when making their own decisions; of course they should. the limits there are not abnormally low because the legislators and bureaucrats are using unsound information, but because they intentionally ignore (or don't even bother acquiring) recommendations which indicate that a higher speed would be safe Which is exactly what I have said elsewhere in these posts. In what you quoted, I was only pointing out that in fact, even if the legislators and bureaucrats were trying to set the "right" speed limits; they can't, because they can't possibly have all the relevant information. So the common belief that the legislators and bureaucrats are "helping to keep the roads safe" by setting speed limits is wrong in two ways: (1) that's not their real motivation; and (2) they're not capable of doing it anyway.