Difference between revisions of "Inference rules"
From Testiwiki
(clarification) |
(text improved) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Definition== | ==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 | + | 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). | 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== | ==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 | + | # 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. | # 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]]. |
| − | # | + | # [[Statement]]s about moral norms are developed using the [[morality game]]. |
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
* [[Axioms of open assessment]] | * [[Axioms of open assessment]] | ||
| + | * [[Morality game]] | ||
==Keywords== | ==Keywords== | ||
Revision as of 12:01, 30 December 2010
This page is a method.
The page identifier is Op_en4733 |
|---|
| 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. |
| Upload data
|
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.
See also
Keywords
Open assessment, deduction, statement, discussion, open participation, inference, scientific method, value judgement.
References
Related files
<mfanonymousfilelist></mfanonymousfilelist>
