People do not wish to engage in discussions involving a lot of “why” questions (i.e. philosophical inquiry), because “why” tends to test their beliefs; and once that happens, people are placed in a curious light of either reprimand or vindication; this is a situation that involves a type of epistemic risk.

Epistemic risk occurs in almost any debate given that each player’s general strategy is either to disprove or protect a position. The execution of the strategy requires that someone loses (I am talking about a discussion amid persons and not some moderated debate; albeit, risk occurs there as well, but not the same type given that the more formal the setting, the more protective barriers exist). I have found, as most do, that political, religious, and economic/philosophical debates seem to produce the most risk. I am fascinated by this because people tend to dismiss such issues as “unimportant” or “pointless” – tend to feel that they do this in an attempt to justify not participating.

I wonder to what extent epistemic risk may be involved in legislative activities, institutional actions, and enterprise?

Just some thoughts.