Within the study of epistemology (the theory of knowledge) there is a defeater of knowledge - epistemic luck. This is why things like lucky guesses or a belief that is arrived at through luck don't count as knowledge. Now, it seems clear that epistemic luck is a variety of luck simpliciter i.e., a type of just plain ol' luck. But not all lucky events defeat knowledge. So I'd like to know: what's the difference between epistemic luck and luck simpliciter? The universe as it is is highly improbable. That means our existence is a matter of luck. Does that mean all our beliefs are not knowledge because we're lucky to even exist? This doesn't intuitively seem to be the case... So what turns a lucky event into an epistemically lucky event? At what point does it need to enter into the equation? Or is this something that's just intuitive among us rational beings?
Or is this something that's just intuitive among us rational beings?
People are too superstitious to be rational. Rationality is borderline nonexistent.
Luck is luck. It comes, it goes. You aren't going to discover anything without luck, because luck in simple is chance. Nothing ever just happens, so chance takes its entrance.
So, in my humble opinion, luck is chance. Nothing more, nothing less.
Epistemic luck is as you said: a lucky guess. The difference between the two is that epistemic luck is a guess determined by thoughts and previous experiences and can be fortified with a heightened sense of perception, similar to an estimation. Luck simpliciter, just plain ol' luck, is the luck of the draw: chance. There's no way for sure to know what you may choose or what may happen in this situation, you just have to go with your gut feeling and take it.
Yes all knowledge is meaningless because we dont really know for sure if its ( philosophicly speaking) correct. But we have to draw a line somewhere dont we?
Take things like an educated guess verses a totally lucky guess into account. The human race consists of an educated guess.
The real problem lies in that you will never have your answer... only questions.
Does that mean all our beliefs are not knowledge because we're lucky to even exist?
Surely the conditions of our creation cannot pre ordain whether or not the 'knowledge' we develop as a species to be true or false.
So what turns a lucky event into an epistemically lucky event?
I think plain luck simpliciter involves no choice at all. A choice based off a gut feeling seems to me to be epistemic luck, because without that feeling, you wouldn't have made the right choice, but you still didn't actually know it was the right choice prior to making it.
That's why say, finding a $10 note on the floor in the middle of the street would be luck simpliciter.
On the other hand, in a casino, betting all your dough on 15 red, based on a gut feeling and wining would be epistemic luck. At least from my very limited understanding of the subject, as discerened from the OP.
Luck is a paradox. Lucks indicates a high improbability in something happening yet luck seems highly improbable.
They say that if you were to try and walk through a wall, there is no way to do it. The truth is, there is a chance that you could do it. But the chance is so small that only after an eternity of trying to walk through the wall you would get through it. Which is impossible, an eternity indicates an endless period of time, of which there is no end of thus you can never walk through the wall.
Luck is simple, yet extremely complicated. It may be as simple as winning the lottery, to creating an entire universe, merely out of chance. Unbiased, unprejudiced, fair. But that is beside the point.
An idea came to me. A new religion called "Epistemicism," in which luck is the great god, the creator of all things. It's probable, and even scientific, not some great figure, more like an indescribable thing that can create anything spontaneously and without warning. Luck, its a funny thing...
They say that if you were to try and walk through a wall, there is no way to do it. The truth is, there is a chance that you could do it. But the chance is so small that only after an eternity of trying to walk through the wall you would get through it. Which is impossible, an eternity indicates an endless period of time, of which there is no end of thus you can never walk through the wall.
Can you further explain the terms "epistemic luck" and "Luck simpliciter"?
Luck simpliciter: This is just what we would normally called "luck." And I don't even mean just good luck, but both bad and good luck. So finding a $100 bill stuck to your shoe, winning the lottery, getting hit with a fly ball at a baseball game. All are examples of just plain ol' luck.
Epistemic luck: when you arrive at a true belief because of luck. Classic examples are a lucky guess, a brain tumor that makes you believe you have a brain tumor, perhaps even knowing something (like the sex of a chicken) without knowing how you know it. When this happens, we can say they have a true belief, but it's not knowledge.
So, in my humble opinion, luck is chance. Nothing more, nothing less.
If luck were purely just chance, then consider this scenario: An avalanche occurs on a remote mountainside. It was very improbable that it would have happened when it did, but no one was affected. Do we call this a case of luck, if nobody knows about it or cares?
On the other hand, in a casino, betting all your dough on 15 red, based on a gut feeling and wining would be epistemic luck.
The act of winning itself would not be epistemic luck. But if you believed that you would win and you were right, then that _is_ epistemic luck. So beliefs have to be involved somehow, and the lucky event has to defeat knowledge.
From what I understand, epistemic luck seems to be when you come to the right conclusion before you should be able to. For instance: in 450 BC, a greek guy named Democritus came up with a primitive theory of the atom and even coined the term "Atomos." But he didn't really do any experiments that should have lead him to this conclusion. However, I think that degrading his thought proccess to pure luck is unfair. He came to this conclusion using very high level thinking. Should he have kept himslef from theorizing simply because he lived in a time that valued deductive reasoning over inductive reasoning?
So beliefs have to be involved somehow, and the lucky event has to defeat knowledge.
Another example could be football (soccer). Sometimes, you just have a good feeling about a match, and are certain that your team will win. It doesn't really have much to do with knowledge or form, but before you're about to play a match, you just 'know' you're going to win. Not sure if that is an example of the importance of mental attitude in sport, or an example of epistemic luck, but it has happened to me a few times, and every time my team won.
My belief is that the two can be used for different ends. Epistemic luck is taking a blind guess and coincidentally guessing it right, as I understand, while luck simpliciter is just luck without any sort of qualification whatsoever. While they may not add to our knowledge, their effect on man is indelible. Without epistemic luck, we might never be able to go on hunches or rely on our instincts, components of our mind that cannot be verified but we somehow, just somehow know to be true.
On the opposite side, the idea of a luck simpliciter allows us to fuel the other virtue of man, or skepticism. Without the notion of luck, if not its existence, we would not be able question anything anyone claims to be true. Without the idea of luck we would not be able to explain much that happens around us. Perhaps I've injected too much of my own personal viewpoint and twisted the meanings to suit my own ends, but from what I can understand, this is my opinion.
