Re: Moral Values

Owen wrote:

> "storytelling is what occurs when data are lacking that speak for
> themselves."

It should be recognized that data never "speak for themselves." Data only
has significance when combined with rules or procedures, implicit or
explicit, for extrapolating knowledge or beliefs from the data within the
context of pre-existing knowledge, beliefs, etc.. For example: There
apparently exists a Hawaii birth certificate for Barack Obama. Some people
have learned a data processing "rule" that says: "Claims concerning place
of birth are proved by the existence of a properly formed and filed birth
certificate." Thus,  for them,. the mere existence of the birth certificate
(data), supports the claim that Barack Obama was born in the USA. However,
others have been taught that even properly formed and registered birth
certificates are not, in fact, sufficient proofs of claims concerning place
of birth. Thus, for them, the existence of Obama's birth certificate leads
not to an acceptance of the claim that he was born in Hawaii but rather to
questions concerning the legitimacy and accuracy of the birth certificate,
suggestions that it may have been corruptly registered, and a refusal to
accept Obama's provenance in the absence of further, more compelling data
or the learning of new rules for mapping from data to accepted claims.
Those whose "procedures" imply that birth certificates prove claims
concerning place of birth accomplish little of value by repeatedly telling
others that such a birth certificate exists. Those whose procedures do not
dictate that birth certificates are reliable indicators of place of birth
may accept, without question, that the birth certificate exists, but that
acceptance is, for them, insufficient to lead to their acceptance of the
same conclusion as others. The same data (i.e. existence of a birth
certificate) leads to completely different and opposing assessment of

I believe what I'm getting at above is what is known in Rhetoric as
"warrants of the audience." Data only "speaks" when combined with warrants
that establish the relationships that lead from data to claims, beliefs,
etc.. (See:
for what I think may be a reasonable summary of the idea.)

As was Owen, I was pleased to see in Daniel's paper his stressing of the
importance of beliefs, however, I was disappointed not to see a mention
that "beliefs" come in at least two flavors:

   - Beliefs which are accepted claims and act like "data." (i.e. "God
   exists," "The moon is made of green cheese," or "Obama can produce a Hawaii
   birth certificate.")
   - Beliefs that are generative in that they allow or support the
   extrapolation of claims from data. These are, I think, what some call
   "warrants."  (i.e. "Birth certificates are sufficient proof of place of

bob wyman

On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 1:09 PM Owen Ambur <> wrote:

> Daniel, in your 2-pager
> <>, this assertion
> resonates strongly with me:  "... the set of trusted statements are always
> grounded on moral values held by the individual."
> However, I'd turn also turn it around and suggest that statements uttered
> and written by individuals (including reporters and politicians) are always
> grounded on their moral values as well.
> From my perspective, storytelling is what occurs when data are lacking
> that speak for themselves.  That's also a fairly apt description of the
> dynamics of politics and large government bureaucracies in general.
> Such "narration" is facilitated, if not also required, by the lack of
> records having the attributes (metadata) outlined in ISO 15489
> <>.
> In the case of U.S. federal agencies, it is reflected in artificial
> ignorance
> <> of the
> requirement set forth in section 10
> <>
> of the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA)
> That's my story and I'm sticking with it (until the need arises to "double
> down" on it).
> I look forward to learning what this group may plan to try to do about the
> underlying issues.
> Owen
> On 9/4/2021 10:44 AM, Daniel Schwabe wrote:
> On 3 Sep 2021, at 23:48, Owen Ambur <> wrote:
> Now I know why the CredWebCG listserv has been silent lately: My E-mail
> service continues to believe messages from it are spam.  I just discovered
> that again late last night.  Not sure how it got that idea.  Certainly not
> from me. Pretty ironic that I must check my spam folder to find messages
> relating to credibility.
> Now you know why I've been so quiet.  Here's another current story that
> seems quite newsworthy to me:
> One of the "signals" I'd like to see is open disclosure of reporters'
> political leanings or, at least, how they rate on Haidt's moral matrix
> <>,
> from which their political biases might reasonably be inferred.
> I’ve written here - about a framework
> that attempts to tie all of these together - information disorders, trust,
> and moral values.
> Cheers
> D

Received on Sunday, 5 September 2021 16:59:54 UTC