# Principle of Optimism > All evils are caused by insufficient [Knowledge](Knowledge.md). This implies that all [Problems](Problem.md) are caused by insufficient knowledge as well. ## Is This Merely Tautological? In [this round table discussion](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-theory-of-anything/id1503194218?i=1000616607030) on The Theory of Anything podcast[^1], a nice response is given to Sam Harris's criticism of the theory of optimism. It is roughly: "no matter what happens on the island, us 'Deutschians' can just define the outcome as either being some law of physics that says you don't have enough resources as a particular time, or we just make our definition of knowledge so expansive as to explain whatever happens." The reason that this isn't a valid critique is two fold: 1. **The Principle of Optimism more interesting when applied to problems that are universal**: In this artificial world that Sam concocted it is the case that the person does not have enough knowledge and everyone will die. But the principle of optimism is not particularly interesting in this case. It is much more interesting when dealing with entire classes of problems (war, poverty). The *content* of the principle of optimism is that it basically gives us a stopping criterion: work on this problem until you solve it or learn that it can't be solved. But until you reach one of these two states, there are still discoveries that can be made. 2. **It leads to different actions if you are thinking via the principle of optimism**: If you were stuck on the island, you would want someone who was running the principle of optimism in their head constantly. It will promote different actions and more creativity and interesting ideas. It is in this way that it is not a [Tautology](Tautology.md)—a tautology is something where by definition you cannot derive any interesting conclusions. --- Date: 20250314 Links to: Tags: References: * []() [^1]: Timestamp: 1:09:44