| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Gary Berg-Cross
wrote:
<snip/>
>Other parts of my mental model
lead to the idea of subjective judgments.
Both are mediated by models but the objective ones >are more like
validated theory and the subjective ones more like hypotheses. Or one could speak of some not as tuned as >others. Certainly it is not as easy to know
whether or not our "model" of peoples intentions "corresponds" or "agrees" with
the >person’s (assumed) real
intentions – these are more like pragmatic hunches and could be very affected by
biases. We may call >these types subjective, but there may be degrees and so
the simple dichotomy of objective to subjective is not the best.
Nice description, but how
do you represent degrees of subjectivity? How
would you define a gradient - number of hypotheses divided by (hypotheses plus
"validated" facts)?
One problem is that the
"validated" hypotheses of some people are what I would call subjective
errors. And they would think the same of my "validated" hypotheses.
So even the validation process is very subjective (or very thirdish). So
most people just treat it like pornography - they know it when they see
it.
Rich
|