Lee's Plausibility Heuristic
I think I've come up with a weighted ranking scale heuristic for scoring the plausibility of claims derived from government, business and theoretical criteria and I'd like to put it out here for critique. This weighted ranking scale could be used for the bible, literature, science, history, news articles etc... and we could compare them.
I suspect that the score for a history text book would be much higher than the bible, the average historical fiction would be somewhat higher, and your average folklore tale would be about the same as the bible.
here's how it goes.
the number by the metric is its relative value.
0. an unsupported claim.
1. a claim has witness testimony
2. a claim that has a verifiable precedent
2. a claim has support of physical evidence
2. a claim that can be reproduced
for example lets take the simple claim that
"Yesterday, the ice in Jans drink melted before she finished it"
- I have seen this happen
- I can put ice in a drink and let it set till it all melts, therefore it has a verifiable precedent, it has support of physical evidence, and it can be reproduced.
So it gets a score of 7.
Now lets take the claim
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
- I have not seen this happen
- there is no physical evidence that this happened.
- There is no evidence that this has ever been reproduced
- there is a witness
therefore it gets a score of 1.
Therefore the more plausible claim of these two is that Jans Ice Melted.
Here are some more examples to test the heuristic with thanks to Jeff Carter over in the comments section at Exploring Our Matrix.
1. Mary loves me
2. John is thinking of the theory of relativity
3. James is happy or sad or afraid
4. David has faith in me
5. Greg wants to go to the store
"1. Mary loves me"
assuming the claim has a one to one relationship to a real world event ....
1. are there witnesses?
yes
2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
people have reported feelings of love, I have experienced love and people that love each other, yes
2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
Love's all in the brain: fMRI study shows strong, lateralized reward, not sex, drive, maybe some other outward signs, rapid heartbeat, flushing skin, fast breathing, yes
2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
does it happen to her again? yes
I give it a 7
"2. John is thinking of the theory of relativity"
assuming the claim has a one to one relationship to a real world event ....
1. are there witnesses?
maybe not
2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
someone thought up the theory of relativity, yes
2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
when asked to explain it, he does, yes
2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
when asked to explain it again, he does, yes
I give it a 6
"3. James is happy or sad or afraid"
assuming the claim has a one to one relationship to a real world event ....
1. are there witnesses?
yes
2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
self-evident, yes
2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
Implicit perception of fear signals: An fMRI investigation of PTSD. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry,5, 135 and if there are outward signs , yes
2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
when given the same stimulus it happens again, yes
I give it a 7
"4. David has faith in me"
assuming the claim has a one to one relationship to a real world event ....
1. are there witnesses?
have people observed that his behavior is consistent with having faith in you? yes
2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
self-evident, yes
2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
if there are outward signs, when asked he says yes, so yes
2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
the behavior is independently verified on some other occasion, yes
I give it a 7
"5. Greg wants to go to the store"
assuming the claim has a one to one relationship to a real world event ....
1. are there witnesses?
maybe not
2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
self-evident, "the store" implies that the identity of the store is understood further implying that Greg has been there before, and also other people want to go to the store otherwise the store would be unsustainable, so yes
2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
if there are outward signs, when asked he says yes, so yes
2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
the behavior is independently verified on some other occasion, yes
I give it a 6, stipulating that the data recorder does not count as a witness
I think the real stickler here, would be quality of evidence. I think a quality heuristic for evidence is needed and possibly exists.
In any case, plausibility is not certainty, and since sometimes decisions need to be made using plausibility as a consideration (for example legislation related to womens rights, civil rights, Invitro fertilization, cloning, homosexuality, stem cell research, abortion, participating in war, etc) a plausibility ranking would come in handy.
I suspect that the score for a history text book would be much higher than the bible, the average historical fiction would be somewhat higher, and your average folklore tale would be about the same as the bible.
here's how it goes.
the number by the metric is its relative value.
0. an unsupported claim.
1. a claim has witness testimony
2. a claim that has a verifiable precedent
2. a claim has support of physical evidence
2. a claim that can be reproduced
for example lets take the simple claim that
"Yesterday, the ice in Jans drink melted before she finished it"
- I have seen this happen
- I can put ice in a drink and let it set till it all melts, therefore it has a verifiable precedent, it has support of physical evidence, and it can be reproduced.
So it gets a score of 7.
Now lets take the claim
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
- I have not seen this happen
- there is no physical evidence that this happened.
- There is no evidence that this has ever been reproduced
- there is a witness
therefore it gets a score of 1.
Therefore the more plausible claim of these two is that Jans Ice Melted.
Here are some more examples to test the heuristic with thanks to Jeff Carter over in the comments section at Exploring Our Matrix.
1. Mary loves me
2. John is thinking of the theory of relativity
3. James is happy or sad or afraid
4. David has faith in me
5. Greg wants to go to the store
"1. Mary loves me"
assuming the claim has a one to one relationship to a real world event ....
1. are there witnesses?
yes
2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
people have reported feelings of love, I have experienced love and people that love each other, yes
2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
Love's all in the brain: fMRI study shows strong, lateralized reward, not sex, drive, maybe some other outward signs, rapid heartbeat, flushing skin, fast breathing, yes
2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
does it happen to her again? yes
I give it a 7
"2. John is thinking of the theory of relativity"
assuming the claim has a one to one relationship to a real world event ....
1. are there witnesses?
maybe not
2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
someone thought up the theory of relativity, yes
2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
when asked to explain it, he does, yes
2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
when asked to explain it again, he does, yes
I give it a 6
"3. James is happy or sad or afraid"
assuming the claim has a one to one relationship to a real world event ....
1. are there witnesses?
yes
2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
self-evident, yes
2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
Implicit perception of fear signals: An fMRI investigation of PTSD. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry,5, 135 and if there are outward signs , yes
2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
when given the same stimulus it happens again, yes
I give it a 7
"4. David has faith in me"
assuming the claim has a one to one relationship to a real world event ....
1. are there witnesses?
have people observed that his behavior is consistent with having faith in you? yes
2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
self-evident, yes
2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
if there are outward signs, when asked he says yes, so yes
2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
the behavior is independently verified on some other occasion, yes
I give it a 7
"5. Greg wants to go to the store"
assuming the claim has a one to one relationship to a real world event ....
1. are there witnesses?
maybe not
2. a claim has a verifiable precedent?
self-evident, "the store" implies that the identity of the store is understood further implying that Greg has been there before, and also other people want to go to the store otherwise the store would be unsustainable, so yes
2. a claim has support of physical evidence?
if there are outward signs, when asked he says yes, so yes
2. is it a claim that can be reproduced?
the behavior is independently verified on some other occasion, yes
I give it a 6, stipulating that the data recorder does not count as a witness
I think the real stickler here, would be quality of evidence. I think a quality heuristic for evidence is needed and possibly exists.
In any case, plausibility is not certainty, and since sometimes decisions need to be made using plausibility as a consideration (for example legislation related to womens rights, civil rights, Invitro fertilization, cloning, homosexuality, stem cell research, abortion, participating in war, etc) a plausibility ranking would come in handy.
15 comments:
Lee,
We were having a conversation about this on another blog. Perhaps we can continue here. How does your heuristic work for the following scenario:
Suppose there are two groups of people, call them Group A and Group B. Both have an ecstatic experience. For argument's sake, let us presume that one group's experience was truly prompted by the a subjective move of the Holy Spirit. The other's experience was purely emotional. To an outward observer there is no difference between the two groups and their physical reactions. Can your heuristic distinguish between the two groups?
Hi Jeff,
good to see you again.
I thought you lost interest so I was looking for some more challenges.
I'll think about it and comment again later.
I need some more information.
what were these groups doing?
and what do you mean by "ecstatic"?
from answers.com I get this meaning:
"Intense joy or delight.
A state of emotion so intense that one is carried beyond rational thought and self-control: an ecstasy of rage.
The trance, frenzy, or rapture associated with mystic or prophetic exaltation.
Slang. MDMA."
is that what you mean?
and how do *YOU* detect the holy spirit?
Lee, maybe you're on to something and maybe you're not. It's not bad from a scientist's perspective, but what about from a philosopher's perspective?
Take the claim from George Berkeley that there is no material universe. This is idealism and it reigned on the Continent for over a century.
All methods seem to have their limits. What are the limits of yours, that is, do they apply to all claims? Why?
Someone already worked out a mathematical system for assessing claims and you can read about it here. Maybe you can utilize Bayes Theorem in your calculations.
Cheers my friend.
Hi John,
thats food for thought. Can of think of anything that would "break it", or give it a false positive (or negative)?
It's not bad from a scientist's perspective, but what about from a philosopher's perspective? Take the claim from George Berkeley that there is no material universe. This is idealism and it reigned on the Continent for over a century.
well I refute that thus [kick] ahhhhgggg!!!!! [hop, hop]
All methods seem to have their limits. What are the limits of yours, that is, do they apply to all claims? Why?
its limitations are that it is a heuristic, meaning that it is
"Of or relating to a usually speculative formulation serving as a guide in the investigation or solution of a problem"
it is definitely pragmatic, and it seems like it may depend on things that are detectible.
Someone already worked out a mathematical system for assessing claims and you can read about it here. Maybe you can utilize Bayes Theorem in your calculations.
right, I know about that, but thats not very practical in a discussion, or in time constrained defeasible reasoning.
As much as I love philosophy, I'd be skeptical that a philospher could ever difinitively make a decision within a given timeframe.
;-)
anyway, its not going to prove anything, thats not what its meant to do, its meant to be a quick way to determine the plausibility of an event, or the likliehood that it represents the real world. If something has a low score, then more information is needed or its not worth considering.
try it on the "water to wine" claim. Its more plausible that its fiction or a magic trick, and that more accurately represents the real world.
Thomas Jefferson probably did something like this when he made the famous "Jefferson Bible".
and about dr. johnsons refutation...
sure you could say that the pain and stone were all in his mind, but if a second party asks observers what they saw, if they all agree, then its not likely that it all exists in dr. johnsons mind.
Lee,
No, I didn't lose interest, it's just the ordinary demands of life intervened, which is going to happen frequently when we talk. Hope you understand.
Let's see if I can answer your questions:
They were being together in the same place. What place? I don't think it matters, although I don't imagine it as being threatening to anyone. I'm not trying to be evasive. Just all in a building or a stadium or any non-threatening place that holds a lot of people would be OK. If you think I need to give more detail here, maybe you could explain why it would matter.
Defn of ecstatic - I had in mind an intense joy or delight, but not beyond self-control, not a frenzy, not a riot.
How do I detect the Holy Spirit - ? Well, now, that would be telling. I would say my detection is non-objective and not through the five physical senses.
Let me know if you know more and I'll try to help.
HI Jeff,
I definitely (!) do understand, no worries!
well, what they were doing does matter.
the reason is that emotions can be initiated by type of stimulation or experience. Look at sports events, rave parties, riots, church events, speaking in tongues, wild dancing, fainting.
I doubt you can point to a situation where a group of people were sitting motionless in a stadium or in a waiting room and suddenly got "ecstatic" all at once.
and detecting the holy spirit is crucial because when you have other precedents besides the holy spirit that provide the same indications as the holy spirit, it is irrational to point to the indications and say that something besides what normally causes them is causing them. It doesn't work in solving real world problems. You don't get solutions that way.
Hi jeff,
let me be more clear,
that unless you can show me how to detect the holy spirit, I'm going to have to go with the real world precedents and use them as a model for explaining how a group of people suddenly got 'ecstatic'.
Lee,
OK, I think I understand.
I agree with you that how we set this problem up is absolutely crucial. My philosophical objection is that, if I give you physical circumstances (what the group is doing) then I am automatically ceding to you that those circumstances initiate the experience, and I am not going to do that. Yes, emotions can be initiated by stimulation. But in this case, we are trying to see if we can distinguish between the Spirit and emotions.
I believe philosophy notes about three ways we can "know": 1) empirically (Locke); 2) rationally (Descartes); 3) both reason and sensation (Kant). Bergson believes he identifies a forth way - "intuition". He believes we can directly experience our own mind. I fall into Bergson's camp. I experience the Holy Spirit in the same way I experience my own mind - directly, with no gap. Example: There is a gap between the apple I apprehend - I am not the apple. There is no such gap in the experience of my mind.
Also, in the spirit of good faith, have you read or read about Gilbert Ryle's Concept of Mind? I believe he has written the definitive book on what seems to be a basis of your thought - that, there is no "mental" realm - it's all physical. Our debate would probably revolve around his concepts.
Jeff,
Are you saying that you can successfully distinguish emotions from an immaterial, unverifiable "spirit"?
Philip -
In my own self, the general answer is yes; but as with physical hearing there are noises that crowd out and make it hard to discern sometimes.
I could not distinguish such a thing within you.
I don't think that's relevant to Lee's heuristic, though. I think he's trying to distinguish based on observable behavior.
Philip -
In my own self, the general answer is yes; but as with physical hearing there are noises that crowd out and make it hard to discern sometimes.
I could not distinguish such a thing within you.
Hi Jeff,
thanks for your reasoned dialogue.
I'll check that author out, thanks for the hint.
I'm off to work on my next article.
chance be with you, I'll keep you in my wishes
;-)
Try this one out.
The creation of this world and universe.
NO Witness testimony
Cannot be reproduced
No verifiable precednet
Claim has support of physical evidence.
This gets a score of 2!
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning GOD created the Heavens and the Earth!
Case Closed.
Post a Comment