Hedging against a non-existent but metaphysically imaginable risk: an evolution
When must we act?
1) A threat may be imaginable in theory, but it also must be substantiated as having a meaningful existence or a measurable, non trivial impact on practical reality:
"The issue of fact must be 'genuine'. . . . When the moving party has carried its burden . . . its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts."
(March 1986)
2) A threat may exist in practical reality, but its likely impact is shown to be minimal or even negligible. Nevertheless, if we can vividly imagine any possible way that the threat could somehow prove totally catastrophic, then we should consider that outcome to be a near-certainty and throw ever resource at preventing that threat, even if we disregard all the others:
"Even if there's just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming true, act as if it's a certainty."
3) If a threat is even minimally imaginable but vividly so, as told by our most creative storytellers, yet we can find no concretely substantiated evidence of it having any likely practical impact whatsoever, then we must conclude that the evidence is being cleverly hidden by someone nefarious. The lack of evidence shall be considered proof of the threat. Therefore we must consider the threat to be certain, existential and imminent.
"[The] only purported evidence that these issues had any potential effect . . . was, quite simply, sheer speculation. . . . failed to present evidence, as opposed to speculation, that any such breach affected the . . . results."
posted by TiR at 7:01 AM
