Re: Moral Values

> On 5 Sep 2021, at 13:59, Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote:
> 
> 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 claims.
> 
> 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: https://www.blinn.edu/writing-centers/pdfs/Toulmin-Argument.pdf <https://www.blinn.edu/writing-centers/pdfs/Toulmin-Argument.pdf> 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.")
Indeed, the text is a short paper (a talk proposal) where I did not have enough space to elaborate further.
There are many sources of beliefs, including some stemming from brain research into the way the are actually formed in our neural circuits - and how they establish themselves through repeated observation of real world phenomena, and others based on external sources, such as social, moral and/or religious norms, among others.

> 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 birth.”)

This is in  essence my point about “trust chains” and anchor points (I’ve talked about this in previous emails, and won’t elaborate here). As you exemplify, for most citizens, for legal matters, whatever is stated in a birth certificate is deemed “true”, because they have “public faith”. As you point out, for others who do not accept this social norm, this is not the case.

What makes one stop in the chain and consider a claim to be a “warrant” varies from person to person, and applies only for the action being contemplated, and for the context in which this decision is being made. If any of those factors changes, the anchor point may be different.

Cheers
D