That explanation what is suspicious about the post drives two intuitions on me how that gets at something and how it is too black and white.
The danger is having a logic of “We had a bad harvest this year. We need to burn more witches so that our harvests are better”. Having a guilty party makes it easy to stop being curious about the mechanics and fuels a very flawed theory of remedy.
But then if there is a car accident and somebody tries to find whos insurance company should be paying the repair bills going in that situation and saying “You are committing a grievious error if you try to find a blame party” seems wrong. There it still seems there are more and less productive ways about it. A court probably would not think who we should bill but rather who is on the hook for the bill. Likewise a airplane crash investigation is very interested in the causes and is likely to be basis for future preventative action. The kind of question of “a plane crashed and we have no clue why” screams to have a high quality, correct answer. It also seems typical that in such investigations multiple contribuitng hypotheses are examined closely.
In serial show The Boys one of the characters spins a plane crash for politcal grief over airspace control. That fictional situation seems like an example of how to do it wrong where it is pretty clear how to do it right.
I guess itmight just be that “How this happened?” is a way more justifiable question rather than “Whos life we should make diffcult based on this?”
That explanation what is suspicious about the post drives two intuitions on me how that gets at something and how it is too black and white.
The danger is having a logic of “We had a bad harvest this year. We need to burn more witches so that our harvests are better”. Having a guilty party makes it easy to stop being curious about the mechanics and fuels a very flawed theory of remedy.
But then if there is a car accident and somebody tries to find whos insurance company should be paying the repair bills going in that situation and saying “You are committing a grievious error if you try to find a blame party” seems wrong. There it still seems there are more and less productive ways about it. A court probably would not think who we should bill but rather who is on the hook for the bill. Likewise a airplane crash investigation is very interested in the causes and is likely to be basis for future preventative action. The kind of question of “a plane crashed and we have no clue why” screams to have a high quality, correct answer. It also seems typical that in such investigations multiple contribuitng hypotheses are examined closely.
In serial show The Boys one of the characters spins a plane crash for politcal grief over airspace control. That fictional situation seems like an example of how to do it wrong where it is pretty clear how to do it right.
I guess itmight just be that “How this happened?” is a way more justifiable question rather than “Whos life we should make diffcult based on this?”