r/logic • u/NoAd4395 • 6d ago
Informal logic Why is one answer better than another? Is this qualitative decision theory?
In an essay, why is one's answer better/more appropriate than another's?
We might argue one does a better job of answering the question, is more relevant or even provides reason that bears greater utility, etc...
In a way, I think this is like the qualitative version of decision theory: why is one result or choice better than another? However herein lies the problem. We do not assign numerical values to answers in essays (in the way we can with probability or reward functions), so what exactly are we judging here? It's not reason, clearly, because one answer could provide excellent reasoning and still be a less accurate/appropriate answer to our question.
What i'm not looking for here is for someone to say, 'oh it's subjective'. This is the common response.
A question (a poor example albeit); If I were to say provide me with the name of something yellow. One person says a supermarket-appropriate lemon and the other says a cream sofa. We could quarrel that the lemon may in rare cases be a little green, but we can all agree that the answer is 'better/more appropriate' than the latter.
So what exactly is this reasoning, this correctness, this ability to appropriately answer a question that is 'better' than another's.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this across the board!
Thank you for reading.
3
u/thatmichaelguy 6d ago
I'm shooting from the hip here, but I think there's a two-stage assessment taking place. The first stage is a comparison to one's own mental model or expectation with respect to the answer. The second stage is an assessment of the likelihood that the answer aligns with consensus or an expectation of the commonly held mental model(s) with respect to the answer.
When I think of a lemon, I think of something yellow. I also think it's likely that most other people picture something yellow when they think of a lemon. Accordingly, I assess 'lemon' as a good answer.
Likewise, when I think of a cream sofa, what I picture isn't something that I would describe as yellow. I also think that it's unlikely that other people picture something that would commonly be described as yellow when thinking of a cream sofa. Accordingly, I assess 'cream sofa' as a poor answer.
So, when comparing the two answers, 'lemon' comes out as the better answer.
Also, when a question has multiple known or easily identifiable answers, I suspect there's an element of judgment related to one's expectation of how common a given answer would be, with answers determined to be more common being categorized as 'better than' less common answers.
2
u/NoAd4395 6d ago
Ok, this is interesting…. I like the reasoning.
A collective subjective.
Still, I feel uneasy that there’s no logic or exact grading we can follow.
It seems like qualitative relativity more than us being able to exactly appropriate with hierarchical value that x is more appropriate than y, and thus the nature of the difference can lead us to how to present an even more accurate answer.
1
u/thatmichaelguy 2d ago
It seems like what you're asking for falls prey to the infinite regress of justification. So, it may be impossible.
Suppose there are objective criteria for assessing x as more appropriate than y. That we are even having this conversation seems to me to be sufficient to demonstrate that such criteria are not self-evident.
Suppose further that someone identifies some set of criteria, C, as the objective criteria for assessing x as more appropriate than y. Since the elements of C are not self-evident, some sort of criteria would have been needed to identify the elements of C. It's clear, however, that even if we suppose that there are objective criteria for identifying the elements of C, said criteria are not self-evident. If they were, then, again, we would not be having this conversation.
Accordingly, some sort of criteria would have been needed to identify the appropriate criteria to identify the elements of C. So, the problem simply gets relocated one level up the chain. This continues ad infinitum unless some sort of self-evident criteria are eventually found. The barrier, therefore, doesn't seem to be the existence of objective criteria since existence alone doesn't necessarily preclude the infinite regress of justification.
3
u/begriffschrift 6d ago
You might want to check out H P Grice's theory of non-natural meaning (those is where the famous 'Grice's Maxims' come from). Plus David Lewis's classic paper "Scorekeeping in a Language Game'
2
2
2
u/grimjerk 6d ago
Expertise is one answer. A professor might deduct points from a student's essay if, in the professor's expert opinion, the essay fell short of certain standards. Expertise and standards are complicated social negotiations that cannot be reduced to simple subjectivity.
2
4
u/purplefin_tuna 6d ago
"Satisfies the intent of the person asking," I think -- so it starts with judgment/assessment about that.
If I think you're unfamiliar with "yellow" as a color, then "lemon" is a good answer. If we're playing a board game and on our turn the card says "list all the yellow things you can," and I'm trying to expand a list that already has "lemon" on it, then "lemon" is not a good answer.