|
|
|
|
|
by nonrandomstring
414 days ago
|
|
You have "epistemic integrity'. I heard someone say "epistemic humility" the other day to mean
fallibilism [0] and the conversation got interesting when we moved on
to the subject of "what one can and should reasonably claim to know".
For example: should cops know the law? Not every programmer needs to be a computer science PhD with deep
knowledge about obscure data-structures... but when you encounter them
it's a decision whether to find out more. Integrity is discomfort with "hand-waving and magical" explanations of
things that we gloss over. Sure, it's sometimes expedient to just
accept face-value and get the job done. Other times it's kinda
psychologically impossible to move forward without satisfying that
need to know more. Frighteningly, the world/society puts ever more pressure on us to just
nod along to get along, and to accept magic. This is where so much
goes wrong with correctness and security imho. [0] https://iep.utm.edu/fallibil/ |
|