Was watching a YouTube debate yesterday and this one person in the debate could not get how or why hypotheticals can be very important. in my opinion they help us arrive or reveal answers before something actually occurs even if it doesn’t happen.
What is a hypothetical: A proposition or statement that is presumed true for the sake of logical analysis or debate. • Hypotheticals are often used as teaching tools to illustrate the application of legal principles or to explore the potential consequences of words and actions
id even argue really out there hypotheticals are important thought exercises too. We are attempting to isolate truths, or to determine best outcomes. Its largely important in ethics.
In one of my previous questions i asked if people agree with the statement "Anyone can become a billionaire in America, but not everyone." a few people i gave a hypothetical to help give them an understanding. so my example is: Imagine if ever single person in the world actually worked extremely hard in life, could everyone of them make it in our capitalist system in America?
It's impossible and would never happen. but i construct the hypothetical this way to help better demonstrate a truth about this statement i asked about.
Yes I agree that hypotheticals are very important to discuss
No i disagree i don't think they are important
I'm not sure
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Updates
+1 y
if anyone can please state why they think its not important i'd appreciate it. i think they are fundamental to understanding how to get to a better society
Do you think creating and discussing hypotheticals is important?
How good would a police officer be if the academy didn’t create, discuss, and train him or her in how to respond to a variety of hypothetical situations? How good would a doctor be if he or she never learned how to apply his or her knowledge in a variety of hypothetical situations in order to treat a patient? How good would the research itself used to teach the doctors be were it not undertaken on the pretext of well-constructed hypotheses?
Well, how good are they anyway? As I understand it, judging from the stories I constantly hear, the police in the United States are inept and criminal. They're trigger-happy, so all of their training doesn't seem to have done them any good. I know, they're not all like that, and we hear about shooting incidents precisely because they're not the norm (or at least they shouldn't be), but the same can be said about other police forces in other parts of the world. Like Australia, for example, in the state of Victoria specifically. All that training just turned them into a gang of mindless thugs.
I guess my answer is, once again, "It depends". I know, that's not the best answer, but I really do believe that hypotheticals are not the best way to learn about anything really. Experience counts for more, as does the memorisation of facts and the ability to improvise.
Yes, but the hypothetical scenarios are just a part of the training, are they not? I'm not a fireman myself, so I don't know what it's like to be one, but I guess I can safely assume that they do a hell of a lot more than just that. The real test comes when they attend their very first fire. That experience alone counts for more - much more - than all the hypothetical scenarios they're ever likely to indulge in.
This is an important technique in discussions of medical ethics. The decisions are complex, so it's useful to ask hypothetical questions to find out what people really value.
here's a hypothetical scenario about medical ethics... what if medical ethics come in second or even third place, because healthcare is a business first, so profiting is what matters first and foremost to most if not all owners of hospitals as well as health insurance companies...
oh wait, that's not hypothetical... that's the reality
If something could happen then it probably will. It would be foolish to dismiss hypothetical questions because they let you plan ahead. On a social level they bring out people's true personality because they have to think rather than just fall back on established beliefs.
"We" don't just base our decisions upon whether or not a certain course of action will be rewarding or risky, because there are other considerations that need to be, and are, considered; like whether or not a certain course of action is right or wrong.
yeah i can't agree with you on that we can still build on the past, but creating hypotheticals is useful to allow us to answer questions long before they come up later and you have a disaster on your hands you didn't contemplate
Its a fun and intellectually challenge thing to do from an individual point of view. For the society... less than that.
But if you are not directly involved, its ultimately irrelevant. But it's still important for you, as an individual, to stay creative, intellectually stimulated and having constructed opinions on different subjects.
At the end, it just mind games who only benefit to you and rarely for the community.
hypothetical scenarios never account for reality as a real variable... and they will lead you to hypothetical outcomes that do not belong to reality, therefore, mostly futile...
yeah i can't agree with you on that we can still build on the past, but creating hypotheticals is useful to allow us to answer questions long before they come up later and you have a disaster on your hands you didn't contemplate
ill be honest thats not a good way of thinking about that
we are not bringing up hypotheticals just willy nilly with no logic to them. we carefully construct them with considering all the possible logical variables within that scenario in hopes to reveal something truthful. its a type of utilitarianism.
if you cannot limit and regulate parameters, then you will never have a condition in which you would be able to apply it into reality... most of the significant progress in this world and society comes from experience... even trial and error... we didn't built all this up based on assumptions
assumptions lead you to mistakes way more often than not, and that's a waste of resources to say the least
"most of the significant progress in this world and society comes from experience" yes but not just that. a lot of philosophy is based on creating hypothetical scenarios and exploring them fully. I doubt you would disagree that philosophy was and is pretty important to help us understand ourselves
"assumptions "
and its not assumptions its just thinking of a scenario and following it down the logical tree basically.
like for instance when archetects or engineers design their buildings or bridges they must think of every possible scenario in order to make it safe and able to stand. such as 'what would happen if a fire were to happen?" or "what if this bridge has a terrible traffic jam with nothing but huge semi trucks carrying heavy loads?"
these are the kinds of things we must use to reach a better full understanding of things in society.
I will give you an example, if we try to emulate a hypothetical scenario to discuss about poverty, there is no way one person can perceive the full picture of what poverty constitutes... simply because we're not in the same place, California and Texas are two very different approaches to that subject, and then you have the UK and the rest of the European Union, you have Africa and the Middle East... you also have Mexico and the rest of Latin America
you see, when the reality is quite impossible to delimit in actual, real, tangible scenarios... when you cannot properly do it in reality... hypothetical scenarios in our heads will not be easier, not when it is full of our own personal bias
assumptions, again... no
because of what I already explained... different REAL experiences lead us to different perceptions, and this brings personal bias... and very possible, the wrong assumptions, past-experiences already happened, they were real, so they're closer to a defined parameter than any of our made-up scenarios
and on your comment about architecture and engineering... I have worked with them as an assistant, and my best friend she is actually both, so yes... what you say is true in part, but those parameters are called regulations (among other things) and regulations are mostly based on past experiences and knowledge... you would be surprised the amount of times in which men have gone and done something to try it out first, and then... later, see how it goes, recollect the data, and then try better
actually you should not be surprised, you're into history I believe... in history you see this all the time, trial and error works best than made-up scenarios in our head that come from our personal bias...
as you might have noticed by now... personal bias is perhaps the biggest issue when you try to see the real world under the scope of hypothetical made-up scenarios
I guess that our previous exchange of opinions has concluded... so now, we're switching to a different one, alright... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you ask me about what I believe, first, I have to clarify my concept of belief... and for me, to believe is to adopt an attitude of trust and hope on a possible outcome and of course, that comes from my very personal perception... and with that being said
yes I do believe that we can further improve as a society and we can actually become better as there is PLENTY of room to improve and many ways in which we can be, better... and I do believe this because in the modern times, for the most part, and for the majority... things nowadays are much better than they ever used to be... and that's what history implies, we are better than ever before, ALL thigs considered
"yes I do believe that we can further improve as a society and we can actually become better as there is PLENTY of room to improve and many ways in which we can be, better.."
ok what in your opinion is the most effective... or efficient way of improving or getting to a better society
our previous exchange did not conclude yet. im going down a logic tree with your for a minute.
the most efficient way ~WOULD~ be a full revamp and reset of our current paradigms, and then... to impose an archetype that will actually get us, to the point in which we want to be
would it be plausible, though... that's the tricky part, but it would be effective for sure, if possible
that would be open to a lot of discussion... and it depends heavily on the perception we have as an actual society, what does actually constitute a problem to solve, and which of those are not... once you have delimited that, then you can start to tackle them with possible solutions... as well as planning with anticipation of further problems that could and would arise
in short, let the experts decide... rather than the leaders
because, as incredible as it sounds... expertise has rarely lead the world as as society, the people that actually know how to solve shit... they're not in the positions of power nor influence
so I guess this could be a good start, but that's my guess
how do we know? we cannot ever know everything for 100% sure
however, most of the bigger issues and problems in this world are closer to common sense rather than closer to intricate and complex, a body of expertise can still be on check if done properly...
don't give the experts full power on the initial choices as well as the ultimate decision and last word or action, everyone has to be responsible and do their part... you can't just sit and wait for others to solve the problems for you or without you, which is the main problem with modern "democracy" for example
if you're active and proactive, along with the institutions that are put in place, to handle the decision making, you can indeed prevent the deception and hidden agendas
evident and tangible results are the way to go... no with promises
also, we can all ask the right questions... for example
asking a leader "what would you do... " is pointless and useless...
the better questions are, " what can you ACTUALLY do about this or that, and how are you going to even start with it, in order to accomplish it " once you're given answers to that... you keep questioning them, you just go on like that till there's a compromise that leads to an actual solution
mammoth task, though... these are still ideas in both of our heads... not precisely how reality works
"also, we can all ask the right questions... for example
asking a leader "what would you do... " is pointless and useless... "
i'd have to disagree with you there because it can help determine how he thinks generally and if its truly worth following this leader.
And its true we cannot know ever thing for 100% sure, but by asking and setting up logical hypothetical it allows us to try to at the very least consider things we might not consider otherwise.
and yes we can do that by being informed by our history, however i think just doing that as limited as there are things you just can't predict even doing that.
So i asked if you think we can as a society improve or become better than what we are so i can see if at the very least you think it is possible.
asking "what would you do" is a question asked for popularity... because you either like the answer or you do not like the answer...
and this is the reason why, political leaders and the leaders of most nations are not experts at anything at all... they are just there to give you the popular answers, what people on either side want to hear... and once elected, they will not actually do much to solve any issue, at all...
so I do insist here... would we do this very same thing with a circle of experts tasked with coming up with the path towards solutions, no... we should not do that
and also because of those reasons... we should not build upon hypothetical approaches that do not border our actual reality
hypothetical scenarios exists only onto the extent of our personal bias... and personal bias is the root of issues many, and the obstacle of most efforts that have to be addressed by larger groups, way larger groups
"asking "what would you do" is a question asked for popularity... because you either like the answer or you do not like the answer..."
ok would you agree that physically hurting people is bad? its not just about 'not liking the answer' to me its about determining whether or not this person has bad intentions... or good intentions but will lead to devastating consequences... cause and effect.
"they are just there to give you the popular answers, what people on either side want to hear... and once elected, they will not actually do much to solve any issue, at all... "
which is why if our news people were all better at their jobs they would hold each of their feets to the fire and ask them hard hitting questions. and that includes hypothetical ones which may one day face them.
and first, just to clarify and backtrack a little bit, on what you stated about me
what I do ~think~ is a bit different than what I do ~believe~
I believe that we can improve and get better as a society, because I am overall... more of a hopeful person and inclined to a positive outcome on most things... but that's my hope and beliefs
what I think, and the answers I have to your questions... are pretty much impossible scenarios because they're a bit detached from our actual reality
like I've been saying all along, hypothetical and what if scenarios are limited very different from reality and actual experience or real approaches
ok i feel we are going around in circles here. all i can say is i do believe hypothetical are important. and we must think on them in order to reach a better understanding of ourselves and the world. its vital in philosophy and ethics especially.
hurting people physically is bad and it is wrong, yes...
but I would agree to it in some situations and I know that sounds bad, however... it's been necessary sometimes, and by this I mean, war... war has been sometimes necessary, and by this I also mean, neutralize terrorists and mass shooters as they're going on a rampage, this is necessary for the greater good
I don't like wars one bit, I do not like the idea that we need to shoot and kill crazy people that are out of control... I don't like it, but I agree that is needed under some specific circumstances
News people are actually GREAT at their jobs... problem is that their job is not to inform the truth without any bias... their employees have employed them to rake ratings, with controversy in order to get paid by the companies that put their commercials in between the "opinion" and "debate" rather than "news"
I have not gone around in circles... I have been consistently aligned with my first statement, from to start to finish...
but yes, it is fine to disagree... I've never had much of a problem with that because that's just how life is, we can all have different perspectives as well as approaches
you disagreed with my opinion, you questioned my answer
you interrogated my answer, you tested, expanded it... and challenged it and kept switching to further examine what I said...
so I just kept answering and complying with your requests...
and before I answered your every question, I did consider first yes, your position... in order to adjust to the approach to mine, which is the fair thing to do when you discuss things
now, to compare me to a "wall of bricks" just because I do not agree with you, I am not sure that is necessary, but that is alright, I don't mind personal takes like that
" Clarissa Ward: But they might say that you inspired them with your message.
Anjem Choudary: There was a report out recently which said that I inspired 500 people, in fact, to carry out operations here and abroad. And if that were really the case, don't you think that I'd be arrested? And I'll be sitting in prison.
Clarissa Ward: So if a young man, one of your students, comes to you and says, "Should I go and fight in Syria or Iraq," what would you tell them?
Anjem Choudary: Well, they haven't come to me. And if they come to me I'll think about a suitable response. But I'm engaged...
Clarissa Ward: What would you tell them?
Anjem Choudary: I don't deal with hypotheticals.
Clarissa Ward: It's a hypothetical question.
Anjem Choudary: I don't deal with hypotheticals. I deal with reality. You know, I mean, there are many things that could happen, hypothetically. Young men come to me...
Clarissa Ward: Why won't you answer the question?
Anjem Choudary: Because it's a...
Clarissa Ward: It really should be an easy question.
Anjem Choudary: I like to deal with reality. If that happens, you can have another interview with me, and I'll deal with it."
@slatyb yes, but the problem with the premise is in the key word "creating"
creating multiple "what if" and "what about" and other made-up scenarios in our head is the problem, because while considering scenarios can be useful to a point... they will only be useful if they are relevant, measured, within the context and reach/approach to reality and a few more things...
in other words, done right... can be helpful, but if you do it the wrong way it will only lead you to an absolute mess, and the best example of that is politics nowadays
so, again... a realistic approach based on actual and true experience is MORE important because the outcome will be most likely to apply, and ultimately be of any use
i dunno man you're kinda shifting the goal posts there because you said in your answer "hypothetical scenarios never account for reality as a real variable."
the word never sounds definite here and now you're saying "in other words, done right... can be helpful,"
it is not shifting... it is making use of words within different contexts
both points can stand for their own, as long as they refer and respond to different contexts and aim to different points in the conversation
so yes, hypothetical scenarios NEVER account for reality, as reality is an absolute, at least in effect... and the context of this point is as to the outcomes, towards a solution
and then later...
in other words, meaning IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT, now engaged into the different approach that @slatyb brought up, which is a different approach from yours... once engaged into a hypothetical approach, these approaches can be done both right and wrong...
I am having two different discussions in here and at the same time... one with you, and one with him
if you two want to team up, and mix both of your points then let me know, so I can consider a third approach that addresses the new mix-up
I think they can be an important way to reveal the intent behind someone's plan but they can also be misused in derailing a plan someone doesn't like the intended outcome of.
My theory is it has to do with openness to experience. People that are very concrete in their thinking can't understand hypothetical questions ime, they refuse to answer and view it as pointless. They're not very good at thinking abstractly. These types often dismiss any sort of skepticism of mainstream narratives as you being an unhinged conspiracy theorist.
I think that hypotheticals can be important when trying to illustrate issues or concepts to a person who doesn’t quite understand what you are trying to say, however, I don’t answer hypothetical questions. (In the real world).
There are enough real problems in life that we don't need to brood over hypotheticals. But what if that wasn't the case? Would we have to spend more time on GaG and less time working to provide for ourselves and our families?
Because they're only hypothetical (i. e. potential possibilities, they're not real). They're only as good as the assumptions that form their foundations, and too many people these days make nonsensical assumptions.
Up to a point. They can be entertaining, but they're rarely actually useful. Attempts to predict the future fall into this category, and even when they're "based more in reality" they're still usually wrong. I see indulging in "hypotheticals" as a way to pass the time when bored, with friends who are willing to go along with you for the ride. When other, more important, tasks demand your attention it's time to get back to the real world, the world of what is.
They serve their purposes. I know where you're going with this, and I have to point out before you do that philosophy (and ethics) don't just deal with hypothetical scenarios; they deal with actual ones as well, and more often too. I like reading science fiction, especially stories that involve alternative realities (ex. the Axis winning World War 2, ex. 'The Man in the High Castle'), but that for me is pure escapism. It's a way to forget about the world I'm actually stuck in, but of course I don't believe those realities are actually out there somewhere, I don't take those scenarios seriously. It's easy enough to imagine how Germany, Italy and Japan could have won the war, but the reality is that they (thankfully) did not, and so we don't have to worry about it. So, they can be fun and entertaining, but that's about it really.
I guess the answer to your original question is, "Yes, but... " It depends. Quite often they're just unnecessary, and people get caught up in them for no good reason at all.
Most Helpful Opinions