Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
Rich,
>but how do you represent degrees of subjectivity? How would you >define a gradient - number of hypotheses divided by (hypotheses >plus "validated" facts)?
If to limit your question just to mathematical formulations of the Laws in "precise" scientific disciplines (such as Physics) - the accuracy, with which the formula approximates experimental data (with account for the accuracy of the measurement of the experimental data itself) -
is the measure of its "validation".
This, for example, applies to comparing the accuracy between the 2nd Newton's Law of Mechanics and improved one in Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity").
Other directions ... - may be it is possible to apply the Theory of Units (Metrology) and the Concept of the Modeling/Empirical analysis of using Criteria(s) - by converting the formulations into "unit-less" form (see for example the Definition of the Reynolds criteria to evaluate/distinguish of Laminar, Mixed and Turbulent flow in liquids; another criteria is Mach's number, etc...).
Regards,
Alex
**************
"Rich Cooper" <richcooper@mindspring.com> wrote:
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 >hese 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