tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140612503596105113.post3779777198969571930..comments2023-04-07T14:21:19.083+03:00Comments on Decisions and Info-Gaps: Baseball and Linguistic UncertaintyYakov Ben-Haimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10765902456064490854noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140612503596105113.post-61027192002427038422011-09-22T12:40:31.033+03:002011-09-22T12:40:31.033+03:00Thank you very much for your reply.
I did not int...Thank you very much for your reply.<br /><br />I did not intend to imply truth to be an aspect or quality of a statement. Truth to me, and I believe to more or less ancient institutions such as science, justice and journalism, is what can be independently confirmed. When that is no longer possible, it can no longer be true, and the meaning it supported can no longer count on that support. <br /><br />Suppose I want to visit some cities in the world, that would be acceptable or satisficing to me, and that the only criterion would be how many roads lead to any of those cities. Since "all roads lead to Rome", the city of Rome would be most robust to uncertainty. If I tried any road leading to any city, I would or would not be stopped by roadblocks of any kind, the absence of which all the way to any city would be my a-select, independent confirmation of reaching it. I know it would take much longer but the normative aspect would not be necessary and I would like to know it was.<br /><br />On a most basic level, I would simply sense current and know my past and future traveling. One level higher, I would realize (know what I sense) and intuit (sense what I know). Then, I would try (realize what I intuit) and value (intuit what I realize). Finally, I would act (value what I try) and react (try what I value), all from the same scratch, or supported by the community, particularly my significant other. Independent confirmation functionally structures my mind at each level in a different way. I do not maximize utility and I do not normatively satisfice. <br /><br />To me, that is the whole story (of my life) or so it seems. What you propose however, could open a door for me.Ron de Weijzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05135626951792092605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140612503596105113.post-33957442893279166922011-09-14T22:22:45.921+03:002011-09-14T22:22:45.921+03:00Your comment is very apt. Truth is extremely impor...Your comment is very apt. Truth is extremely important. However, not all statements are either true or false. Here is John Dewey's position on the relation between meaning and truth:<br /><br />"Meaning is wider in scope as well as more precious in value than truth, and philosophy is occupied with meaning rather than with truth. Making such a statement is dangerous; it is easily misconceived to signify that truth is of no great importance under any circumstances; while the fact is that truth is so infinitely important when it is important at all, namely, in records of events and descriptions of existences, that we extend its claims to regions where it has no jurisdiction. But even as respects truths, meaning is the wider category; truths are but one class of meanings, namely, those in which a claim to verifiability by their consequences is an intrinsic part of their meaning. Beyond this island of meanings which in their own nature are true or false lies the ocean of meanings to which truth and falsity are irrelevant. We do not inquire whether Greek civilization was true or false, but we are immensely concerned to penetrate its meaning." John Dewey, "Philosophy and Civilization", appearing in "Intelligence in the Modern World: John Dewey's Philosophy", Joseph Ratner, ed., Modern Library, 1939, p.247 <br /><br />In addition, I would add that truth is sometimes of limited utility in making responsible decisions. Once again, as in Dewey's case, this is a dangerous statement since it might be misconstrued to mean that truth is of no importance in responsible decision making, while in fact truth is very important. But since truth is sometimes in scarce supply, one must sometimes ask the "robustness question": how wrong can we be in our understanding of the situation, and the action that we are contempting will still yield an acceptable outcome. The contemplated action is robust to our ignorance of the truth if an acceptable outcome is guaranteed even if our current understanding is quite wrong. Info-gap theory (http://info-gap.com) provides a systematic tool for robust and responsible decision making.<br /><br />So the truth is that truth is important, but it's not the whole story.Yakov Ben-Haimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10765902456064490854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9140612503596105113.post-42431898756359252672011-09-14T21:30:05.963+03:002011-09-14T21:30:05.963+03:00Your work is fascinating and I will spend many hou...Your work is fascinating and I will spend many hours getting to grips with it as much as I can. <br /><br />One thing I have trouble getting my head around, is your seemingly avoiding to use the concept of, or the reality of, Truth.<br /><br />I know that is very debatable itself, however we have long traditions of getting as close to it as we can and NOT to maximize robustness to uncertainty of a satisfactory outcome.<br /><br />The way that e.g. science, justice and journalism traditionally exclude uncertainty, is independent confirmation. Sure there is a spray but it is not unavoidable.<br /><br />Good luck with your great work!Ron de Weijzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05135626951792092605noreply@blogger.com