If it had said "prey", not "threat", I wouldn't have wasted three minutes staring after I found it. I kept expecting a cleverly camouflaged guy with a rifle, or something.
I agree - one wolf (if that is a red wolf, and not a fox) isn't much of a threat if you know what you're doing, and I do - but back in the ancestral environment they might not have learned fear of humans, so it could be enough of a threat to earn the word. Even if it's a threat you can dispose of, you still must attend to it.
If it's a fox, you're perfectly safe, of course, unless it's rabid.
This article relates to a game, being developed by Shiny Ogre Games, based on "The Twelves Virtues of Rationality" by Eliezer Yudkowsky.
We can write whole books about empiricism, describing what it is, why it's useful, and how it works. We can use an innumerable amount of words to describe the nuanced techniques involved in thinking empirically about a problem. Words are certainly valuable for describing things, but can gameplay describe a thing more effectively?
Our brains are pattern-seeking machines. We like figuring things out, it's a survival mechanism. Our brains release endorphins when we decode the noise of our environment.
Games more or less consist of a series of interesting challenges (or patterns), with mechanics that allow the player to figure out the challenges (or decode the noise). Decoding noise is what our brains do all the time, when we find patterns in the noise, we cache those for later reference. We do this because it is fun.
As Raph Koster famously said in his book, A Theory of Fun: "Fun is just another word for learning", because of this, gameplay can be expressive. By designing the challenges so that they evoke your various modes of thinking, and then setting those challenges into a narrative where the player assumes a role and is allowed to explore the system within the constraints of that role, a game can allow the player to experience the application of a concept.
In the Empiricism level, we are trying to create a puzzle that requires empirical thinking to solve. That is, the player can only solve the puzzle if they are able to draw on their experiences and observations both within the game and without to make accurate predictions about how the puzzle elements should behave. In this puzzle, we do not try to trick or mislead the player, we do not require the player to react quickly, there is no violence, and the player cannot die. We give the player the freedom to experiment with the puzzle, and all we ask is that the player think empirically about the world presented by the puzzle.
If all goes as planned, the player will solve the puzzle not through logical-deduction, process of elimination, or wild guessing, but by empiricism. They will do this without a single word of instruction or narrative, and they will grasp the concept on a deeper level because of it. Hopefully.
Here's some art: