List of rejected cornerstones in open assessment
This page is a variable.
The page identifier is Op_en4751
|Moderator:Jouni (see all)
|This page is a stub. You may improve it into a full page, and then a rating bar will appear here.
List of rejected cornerstones in open assessment contains fundamental principles or major practical assumptions that become useless, irrelevant, or harmful in the context of open assessment.
What are contains fundamental principles or major practical assumptions that become useless, irrelevant, or harmful in the context of open assessment?
Based on own thinking and numerous practical situations where these principles are not needed to fulfil a task that previously did not work out with the principle.
|Replaced by (if any)
|Why not needed
|Moral principles (what should be) cannot be deduced from facts (what is).
|Moral principles are based on expressed opinions of the individuals belonging to the group whose moral principles are being investigated. Therefore, studying these opinions with observation and scientific method does bring valid information about moral. In addition, the moral principles derived for a group must be coherent.
|The two new rules about opinions as basis and coherence are enough to form a solid basis for treating moral principles in a similar way as statements of natural sciences.
|Scientific, pre-peer-reviewed article
|Information is not accepted as scientific until it has passed a peer review and subsequently published in an reputable scientific journal.
|Information is first published in an open website designed for this purpose. If it is found important, the readers will launch a self-organised peer review and editing process to develop the content into something that is generally found acceptable as scientific information.
|Vast amount of information is published without pre-peer review. If this is always required from scientific information, it will just lead to situations where non-scientific information is used instead, because that is quickly available.
|The two approaches complement each other, as with different pieces of information, different approaches can be taken.
|Knowledge is justified true belief (JTB).
|Subject S knows that a proposition P is true if, and only if: 1) P is true, 2) S believes that P is true, and 3) S is justified in believing that P is true.
|Knowledge is a statement that anyone can attack but nobody does.
|This approach avoids the major problem of JTB that has truth in its criteria, although we can never actually be sure what the truth is. In addition, it has an advantage that the more important a piece of information is, the less likely it is to become accepted as knowledge. On the other hand, the opposite is also true, but this problem is likely to be less important than it appears.