Inference rules: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 08:28, 2 February 2012

This page is a knowledge crystal of subtype method. The page identifier is Op_en4733
Moderator:Jouni (see all)

Upload data {{#opasnet_base_link:Op_en4733}}

Inference rules are guidance for deciding what to believe in open assessments. For a discussion about how to organise the things to believe, see open assessment and information object.

Scope

What is the minimum set of rules that are required to know what to believe in open assessments? Believe means that a person thinks that a statement about reality is actually true.

Definition

These rules are based on several axioms or concepts.

Axioms of open assessment define the things that cannot be verified by observation, so there is no other way to know but just to believe.
Statement is a presentation of opinion or position about something that is (ie., a scientific statement) or something that should be (ie., a moral statement).
A group in open assessment means one or more individuals who participate in some activity, e.g. performing or reading an assessment.
A belief system is a collection of statements that are considered valid by a person or group.
A belief system that is considered valid by a group is called a shared belief system.

The rules should not need the concept expert (i.e. a person who should be trusted over a non-expert).

Result

Anyone can promote a statement about anything (promote = claim that the statement is true).
A promoted statement is considered valid unless it is invalidated (i.e., convincingly shown not to be true).
The validity of a statement is always conditional to a particular group (which is or is not convinced). In other words, a statement that one group considers valid may be considered invalid by another group. The groups don't have to agree. (But it is naturally more effective to operate with statements that are widely accepted.) By default, the group for scientific statements is the whole mankind. If the group differs from the default, it must be explicitly described.
A statement always has a field in which it can be applied. By default, a scientific statement applies in the whole universe and a moral statement applies within a group that considers it valid. If the field of applicability of a statement differs from the default, it must be explicitly described.
Two moral statements by a single group may be conflicting only if the fields of application do not overlap. For example, the Finnish law may have different rules for a police and a doctor about physical integrity of another person.
There may be uncertainty about whether a statement is true (or whether it should be true, in case of moral statements). This can be quantitatively measured with subjective probabilities. However, uncertainty does not mean ambiguity. Statements should be expressed in a way that, given enough information, it would be possible to unambiguously tell whether it is true or not. This is called a clairvoyant test. To be precise, the subjective probability answers this question: "If I knew the truth, what is the probability that I would consider the statement valid?"
There can be other rules than these inference rules for deciding what a group should believe. Rules are also statements and they are validated or invalidated just like any statements. For example, logic and laws of physics are sets of rules that are widely accepted, but a group may agree to use also more disputed rules.
If two people within a group promote conflicting statements, the a priori belief is that each statement is equally likely to be true.
A priori beliefs are updated into a posteriori beliefs based on observations (in case of scientific statements) or opinions (in case of moral statements) and open criticism that is based on shared rules. In practice, this means the use of scientific method. Opinions of each person are given equal weight.

Keywords

Open assessment, deduction, statement, discussion, open participation, inference, scientific method, value judgement.

References

Related files

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Category:Open assessment]]
-{{method|moderator=Jouni|stub=Yes}}
+{{method|moderator=Jouni}}
-'''Inference rules''' are guidance for deciding what to believe in [[open assessment]]s.
+'''Inference rules''' are guidance for deciding what to believe in [[open assessment]]s. For a discussion about how to organise the things to believe, see [[open assessment]] and [[information object]].
 ==Scope==
-How can one know what to believe in [[open assessment]]s? ''Believe'' means that a person thinks that a statement about reality is actually true.
+What is the minimum set of rules that are required to know what to believe in [[open assessment]]s? ''Believe'' means that a person thinks that a statement about reality is actually true.
 ==Definition==
-These rules are based on [[axioms of open assessment]]. A key concept is ''[[statement]]'', which means a claim about how something is or happens in reality. A collection of statements that are considered to be true by a particular person is called a ''[[belief system]]'' of that person. When a group of people have a same collection of statements that they consider to be true, it is called a ''shared [[belief system]]''. These inference rules are based on the idea of shared belief systems, and the rules attempt to create criteria for developing shared [[belief system]]s.
+These rules are based on several axioms or concepts.
+* '''[[Axioms of open assessment]]''' define the things that cannot be verified by observation, so there is no other way to know but just to believe.
+* '''[[Statement]]''' is a presentation of opinion or position about something that is (ie., a scientific statement) or something that should be (ie., a moral statement).
+* A '''[[group]]''' in [[open assessment]] means one or more individuals who participate in some activity, e.g. performing or reading an assessment.
+* A '''[[belief system]]''' is a collection of [[statement]]s that are considered valid by a person or [[group]].
+* A belief system that is considered valid by a [[group]] is called a '''[[shared belief system]]'''.
 The rules should not need the concept ''expert'' (i.e. a person who should be trusted over a non-expert).
@@ Line 15: / Line 20: @@
 ==Result==
-# Anyone can promote a statement about anything (''promote'' = claim that the statement is true).
+# Anyone can promote a [[statement]] about anything (''promote'' = claim that the [[statement]] is true).
-# A promoted statement is considered valid unless it is invalidated (i.e., convincingly shown not to be true).
+# A promoted [[statement]] is considered '''valid''' unless it is invalidated (i.e., convincingly shown not to be true).
-# There are also shades of grey of validity (likely, plausibly, unlikely to be true). This can be quantitatively measured with [[subjective probability|subjective probabilities]].
+# The validity of a [[statement]] is always conditional to a particular [[group]] (which is or is not convinced). In other words, a [[statement]] that one group considers valid may be considered invalid by another group. The groups don't have to agree. (But it is naturally more effective to operate with statements that are widely accepted.) By default, the [[group]] for scientific [[statement]]s is the whole mankind. If the group differs from the default, it must be explicitly described.
-# The validity of a statement is always conditional to a particular group of people. In other words, a statement that one group considers valid may be considered invalid by another group. The groups don't have to agree. (But it is naturally more effective to operate with statements that are widely accepted.)
+# A [[statement]] always has a field in which it can be applied. By default, a scientific [[statement]] applies in the whole universe and a moral [[statement]] applies within a group that considers it valid. If the field of applicability of a [[statement]] differs from the default, it must be explicitly described.
-# There can be other rules than these inference rules for deciding what to believe. Rules are also statements and they are validated or invalidated just like any statements. For example, logic and mathematics can be used to show that if one statement is valid, another must be invalid.
+# Two moral [[statement]]s by a single group may be conflicting only if the fields of application do not overlap. For example, the Finnish law may have different rules for a police and a doctor about physical integrity of another person.
-# If two people within a group promote conflicting statements, the ''a priori'' belief is that each statement is equally likely to be true.
+# There may be [[uncertainty]] about whether a [[statement]] is true (or whether it ''should be'' true, in case of moral [[statement]]s). This can be quantitatively measured with [[subjective probability|subjective probabilities]]. However, [[uncertainty]] does not mean ambiguity. [[Statement]]s should be expressed in a way that, given enough information, it would be possible to unambiguously tell whether it is true or not. This is called a [[clairvoyant]] test. To be precise, the subjective probability answers this question: "If I knew the truth, what is the probability that I would consider the statement valid?"
-# ''A priori'' beliefs are updated based on observations and open criticism that is based on shared rules. In practice, this means the use of [[scientific method]].
+# There can be other rules than these inference rules for deciding what a [[group]] should believe. Rules are also [[statement]]s and they are validated or invalidated just like any [[statement]]s. For example, logic and laws of physics are sets of rules that are widely accepted, but a [[group]] may agree to use also more disputed rules.
-# Personal moral beliefs are considered only as statements about what the moral beliefs of a person are. For example, if a person believes that it is wrong to kill a person, this is not taken as a universal moral norm. (Here, universal means that a norm exists independently of human individuals and their beliefs.) Instead, simply, the statement that this person thinks that it is wrong to kill a person is considered valid. If a similar statement applies to everyone in a group, these statements can be used as practical guidance to deduce what actions the group is willing to accept or not accept. Whether there actually exists universal moral norms about anything is something that [[open assessment]] does not attempt to solve.
+# If two people within a [[group]] promote conflicting statements, the ''a priori'' belief is that each statement is equally likely to be true.
+# ''A priori'' beliefs are updated into ''a posteriori'' beliefs based on observations (in case of scientific [[statement]]s) or opinions (in case of moral [[statement]]s) and [[open criticism]] that is based on shared rules. In practice, this means the use of [[scientific method]]. Opinions of each person are given equal weight.
 ==See also==
 * [[Axioms of open assessment]]
+* [[Shared belief system]]
+* [[Morality game]]
+* [[Statement]]
+* [[Group]]
 ==Keywords==
@@ Line 39: / Line 49: @@
 {{mfiles}}
+{{eracedu}}