Timeline for Can definitions be experimentally tested?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 11, 2014 at 7:02 | comment | added | user12262 | Rex Kerr: I understand and agree that you meant the "swell/lame" scale definition to be less distinctive than the underlying "given ratings"; which may in turn be less distinctive than the judgements noted in the "log book" of each restaurant tester. The "swell/lame" scale may be quite useless to gourmets, and unfair to the best "lame" restaurants. (Nevertheless: convenient for tourists, for instance.) These are features of your example. But my question was general; and the "ambiguity" (even: "ill-formedness") shown above seems a general problem. Thanks again for helping me to pinpoint it. | |
| Dec 10, 2014 at 20:12 | comment | added | Rex Kerr | @user12262 - The mayor's request is unambiguous, but ambiguity is not the problem. The problem is that the distinction between two classes has been drawn at the point where the least distinction exists. So by almost any measure of utility, this is a bad place to draw a distinction, and thus one of the least helpful definitions to make. | |
| Dec 10, 2014 at 15:44 | comment | added | user12262 | Rex Kerr: Let your "swell/lame" definition be based on annual ratings. Now suppose the mayor of city X says: "People think there's always more lame restaurants going out of business than swell ones. Can you check that, for this year, and the past five?". This seems an unambiguous assignment. But OTOH, being asked to "test your definition (for city X, and years 2009 - 2015)", you may need clarification: "Testing it for what??: Usefulness for Tourists? Gourmets? Students? City planners? ...". Doesn't that illustrate the difference between testing hypotheses/predictions vs. "testing definitions"? | |
| Dec 10, 2014 at 6:59 | comment | added | Rex Kerr | @user12262 - Since the "what we want" is the same thing as why we are presumably doing science in the first place, I don't think it's actually "very different". You do have to be aware of it when interpreting the test, though, which is not always necessary when determining whether the prediction of a model is accurate or not. | |
| Dec 10, 2014 at 6:18 | comment | added | user12262 | Rex Kerr: A considerate and helpful answer, thanks, +1. I take from it the following: "an experimental test of a consistent, correctly understood definition, in a particular trial" is by itself still not sensible and meaningful, but requires some specific additional measure of "what we want (utility)". We may then ask whether or not the given definition "provided what we want, in the trial under consideration". (This seems very different from "an experimental test of a specific hypothesis or prediction, in a particular trial" which appears rather unambiguous as it stands.) | |
| Dec 10, 2014 at 0:59 | history | answered | Rex Kerr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |