Inference rules: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:01, 30 December 2010

This page is a knowledge crystal of subtype method. The page identifier is Op_en4733
Moderator:Jouni (see all)
This page is a stub. You may improve it into a full page.
Upload data {{#opasnet_base_link:Op_en4733}}

Inference rules are guidance for deciding what to believe in open assessments.

Scope

How can one 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 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 systems.

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).
There are also shades of grey of validity (likely, plausibly, unlikely to be true). This can be quantitatively measured with subjective probabilities. However, the shades do 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.
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.)
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 (e.g. an axiom) is valid, another (a theorem) must also be valid.
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 and open criticism that is based on shared rules. In practice, this means the use of scientific method.
Statements about moral norms are developed using the morality game.

Keywords

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

References

Related files

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ==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 [[axioms of open assessment]]. A key concept is ''[[statement]]'', which means a claim about how something is or happens in reality. A collection of [[statement]]s 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.
 The rules should not need the concept ''expert'' (i.e. a person who should be trusted over a non-expert).
@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 ==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]].
+# There are also shades of grey of validity (likely, plausibly, unlikely to be true). This can be quantitatively measured with [[subjective probability|subjective probabilities]]. However, the shades do 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.
-# 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.)
+# 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.)
-# 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.
+# 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 (e.g. an axiom) is valid, another (a theorem) must also be valid.
 # 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 based on observations and open criticism that is based on shared rules. In practice, this means the use of [[scientific method]].
+# ''A priori'' beliefs are updated into ''a posteriori'' beliefs based on observations and [[open criticism]] that is based on shared rules. In practice, this means the use of [[scientific method]].
-# 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.
+# [[Statement]]s about moral norms are developed using the [[morality game]].
 ==See also==
 * [[Axioms of open assessment]]
+* [[Morality game]]
 ==Keywords==