The uncertainly algorithm discussed today in class proved to be--despite kind attempts towards enlightening my insomnia-addled brain--very confusing.
On the one hand, this can take the form of an objective prediction based on an analysis of vast amounts of available data: say, polling figures for an upcoming election, stock-market trend speculation, and weather reports.
On the other hand, this could be some kind of super-computer that provides resolutions to questions that are fed into it: for example, how can one bring about the peaceful reconciliation of North and South Korea with the least amount of bloodshed and the maximum amount of smooth socio-economic integration?
The first kind is unquestionably something that already occupies a large part of our social consciousness--perhaps larger than many even notice. Due to its pretensions to objectivity (and thus its claim to inevitablity), such predictions have an extremely seductive power, for they are beacons of hope and certainty in a world that become ever more complex and clamorous. It has a kind of institution force, a sort of reliability that we crave and need--now that we have more options than ever, we would find it overwhelmingly difficult to choose to do anything had we no guidelines upon which to base our actions. Given that we are also (arguably) in a post-ideological age, one in which secular skepticism is also gaining steam, these "scientific" predictions become the firmest pillar we can lean on. In fact, our social consciousness is not just informed by such predictions, but actually formed by them: by seeing how things will happen, inevitably, we tend to slide to expect the category of prediction to show us how things ought to happen. We has in fact gotten an ought from an is; take a look at how economic analysts are not merely commentators, but are in fact the people who actually have the most impact on market trends--the snowball effect. Once stock market sages announce their hunches, everybody flocks to make their predictions a reality.
Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but I tend to see film/book/culture critics as having similar roles in society. Their predictions are not only subjective opinions, but in fact do real work towards shaping the way in which certain works are received. The prevalent tendency to create "Top 10 Entrepreneurs" lists or "100 best vacation spots" may also have this kind of power: for they tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies. The very fact that someone has been included in such a list will affirm their success and exposure rate--just as the list predicted!
The second type is, I believe, a completely different kind of mechanism. It involves a prior commitment to certain values, one is responsible for what one has undertaken to make manifest in the world (whereas my intuition is that it would be more difficult to blame someone for investing in a stock based on a trumpeting endorsement from a top analyst--if it tanks, he obviously suffers the consequences, but this is chalked up more to luck or extenuating circumstances than anything else). I am of the opinion that ethical action may still be possible with such a contraption. The question is whether it will be used to uphold ethical action or whether it will merely be used to enforce certain ulterior motives.