-
-
Replying to @KidinaSandbox
.
@KidinaSandbox Classical certainty obtainable about very few things regarding which there is complete info. We are stuck with Bayesianism.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @suzywanalyst
@SuzanneWaldman Really the issue, then - level of information. And we can never be sure we have "enough".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KidinaSandbox
@KidinaSandbox If you have to go with what you have you have to rely on best guesses="judgement?" "wisdom"?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @suzywanalyst
@SuzanneWaldman And Kahneman, Tversky showed that often checklists trump experienced "judgement". Can we accept some unknowing?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KidinaSandbox
@SuzanneWaldman I heard Brian Cox once claim in an interview that we *can* know anything/everything. Not sure that's true or helpful.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KidinaSandbox
@KidinaSandbox I think unhelpful because social meanings are ultimately unknowable and affect material outcomes.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @suzywanalyst
@SuzanneWaldman
@KidinaSandbox Relates to the fact that social utility functions are ill-defined, per Arrow, not subjectivity of probability2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@SuzanneWaldman @KidinaSandbox To consider expected utility you need probabilities. Here you can't even define (unshielded) social utility.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.