Question

...
Richard

Is this reasoning fallicious or faulty?

In a single vehicle work accident, the investigations team from the employer attributed the main cause for the accident to be operator error because they found the vehicle "to be in good working condition before and after the accident". The weather was fine and there was no DUI or willful act on the part of the operator.

Is it right to come to that conclusion?
asked on Saturday, Mar 02, 2019 09:47:58 AM by Richard

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0
I think to best answer this, one would have to have some specialized knowledge of automobile accidents. Having said that, I would think that to create a proper dichotomy, there is the operator, and everything else. If you can eliminate the probability of "everything else" then the operator is all that is left.* It appears that in the above example, "everything else" is limited to the working condition of the vehicle and the weather. But what about other drivers, animals, faulty traffic signs, natural or man-made obstacles in the road, etc.? From the description above, I would say the conclusion reached was premature ( hasty generalization ).

* This is one of ideas of Sherlock Holmes, which is also problematic. In short, it is generally impossible to eliminate "everything else" because we cannot know what everything else is. But that is why I said that an expert in the field of investigating accidents would best know what to look for and because the scope of "everything else" is limited in practice (i.e., we can reasonable rule out demonic possession of the operator, etc.).
answered on Saturday, Mar 02, 2019 10:03:32 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Comments