3 ms·

I don't believe the your notions of objective and subjective confidence really stand up too well. I think you'll find that the more you try to define the exact

by dejb 17y ago

I don't believe the your notions of objective and subjective confidence really stand up too well. I think you'll find that the more you try to define the exact difference between them the more it will fade away. Perhaps it is a philosophical question. Similarly the only reason to look at measuring the length of a rope as 'objective' versus the combination of the many measurements that make up the supporting evidence for special relativity is because the former is subjectively (intuitively) simpler. . However the main point is that probabilities are required for decision making. Whether you like it or not, any statement must be interpreted probabilistically to be incorporated into decision making. You need to multiply the probability by the risk/reward differential to have basis to work things out. You do this internally without realising it. 'What are the chances that this movie will be good versus the cost of going to see it'. Exaggerated statements can hurt people's decision making capabilities. That is why I oppose them. You need to replace the Booleans in some of your mental constructs with fractions.

scott_s 17y ago
Let's say I measure a rope many times, and come up with a mean value and a 95% confidence interval for the length of the rope. That is, assuming my "experiment" is constructed correctly, I say that the true length of the rope lies within that range, with a 95% confidence. That's an objective confidence. But in order to come up with that number, I had to assume my experiment was correct. I very well could have had a systematic error in the experiment such as misusing my ruler, accidentally holding the rope such as to artificially shorten it, or completely misunderstood the concept of length. My confidence that my experiment is correct is both independent of the confidence interval I reported, and not quantifiable.
- dejb 17y ago
  What about measuring the speed of light? or measuring the distance from the earth to sun? Where do these fall in your neat divisions between subject and objective? Is there a certain class of proposition that is too complicated to be called objectively true? Are all medical theories, for example, simply subjective and have no real meaning in terms of predicting likely future outcomes? Any statement or theory that does not have predictive power is meaningless. Predictive implies probability. Probability implies odds. Put up or shut up up.

by dejb 17y ago

scott_s 17y ago

Let's say I measure a rope many times, and come up with a mean value and a 95% confidence interval for the length of the rope. That is, assuming my "experiment" is constructed correctly, I say that the true length of the rope lies within that range, with a 95% confidence. That's an objective confidence. But in order to come up with that number, I had to assume my experiment was correct. I very well could have had a systematic error in the experiment such as misusing my ruler, accidentally holding the rope such as to artificially shorten it, or completely misunderstood the concept of length. My confidence that my experiment is correct is both independent of the confidence interval I reported, and not quantifiable.

dejb 17y ago
What about measuring the speed of light? or measuring the distance from the earth to sun? Where do these fall in your neat divisions between subject and objective? Is there a certain class of proposition that is too complicated to be called objectively true? Are all medical theories, for example, simply subjective and have no real meaning in terms of predicting likely future outcomes? Any statement or theory that does not have predictive power is meaningless. Predictive implies probability. Probability implies odds. Put up or shut up up.