Originally Posted by wphamilton

If we're waxing philosophical, this perspective must be feasible since people survive it but I have to disagree both in theory and in practice. Reason helps us before an event, and in reacting to an event, but after the fact our reasons are less relevant than the repercussions. We probably agree on that - maybe that's all you're trying to say in which case I take it back and say "spot on."

But it sounds like you want to disregard the probability and statistics because of a specific outcome, which would be completely wrong. Everything we experience is governed by some probability, which we may control to varying extent which makes it fundamental to rational, thoughtful behavior. Otherwise we're reduced to rote rule-following.

When no incident occurs, we do experience a non-zero positive benefit - the risk reduction we obtained when we made the decision. After the ride is over, and we didn't bump our head, it is hard to say there was any benefit to the helmet - and yet, if the decision was optimal for risk reduction prior to the ride, it is still optimal even in hind-sight knowing nothing happened. Because of the element of chance.