Difference between revisions of "Inference rules"
From Testiwiki
m (→Result) |
(made more coherent) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Open assessment]] | [[Category:Open assessment]] | ||
| − | {{method|moderator=Jouni | + | {{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. | ||
==Scope== | ==Scope== | ||
| − | + | 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== | ==Definition== | ||
| − | These rules are based on [[ | + | 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). | The rules should not need the concept ''expert'' (i.e. a person who should be trusted over a non-expert). | ||
| Line 17: | Line 22: | ||
# 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). | ||
| + | # 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.) | ||
# There may be uncertainty about whether a statement is true. 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. | # There may be uncertainty about whether a statement is true. 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. | ||
| − | + | # 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. | |
| − | # There can be other rules than these inference rules for deciding what | + | # If two people within a [[group]] promote conflicting statements, the ''a priori'' belief is that each statement is equally likely to be true. |
| − | # 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]]. |
| − | # ''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 | ||
| − | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
* [[Axioms of open assessment]] | * [[Axioms of open assessment]] | ||
| + | * [[Shared belief system]] | ||
* [[Morality game]] | * [[Morality game]] | ||
| + | * [[Statement]] | ||
| + | * [[Group]] | ||
==Keywords== | ==Keywords== | ||
Revision as of 16:04, 2 January 2011
This page is a method.
The page identifier is Op_en4733 |
|---|
| Moderator:Jouni (see all) |
|
Give your opinion to the peer rating of the content of this page. |
| Upload data
|
Inference rules are guidance for deciding what to believe in open assessments.
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.)
- There may be uncertainty about whether a statement is true. 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.
- 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.
See also
Keywords
Open assessment, deduction, statement, discussion, open participation, inference, scientific method, value judgement.
References
Related files
<mfanonymousfilelist></mfanonymousfilelist>
