More actions
Predicate analysis
Our immediate goal is a foundational tool that begins with predicates (related to a question – we’ll get to that shortly) and then finds the truth without resort to preconceived conclusions. This would be a new way of truth seeking, one that sits alongside established techniques (eg the scientific method, adversarial collaboration, expert opinion, etc). This, in my view, is difficult but let’s try it.
Let’s state from the outset that for this technique to work, communities will have to agree a-priori to use it as their truth-finding mechanism for the question at hand and then abide by the conclusions it generates. This is no different than any truth-seeking mechanism. We agree to use the scientific method, we agree to adversarially collaborate, etc.
We must start with at least the question of what we’re trying to achieve. The predicates must be related to some subject we have in mind or else they are random. Let’s suppose we have the following (very simple) argument for improving our educational system:
Our teachers are paid less than other similarly qualified professions. Our students score poorly on standardized tests compared to those of other countries. Our educational resources are unequally spread between rich and poor communities. Too much money flows to rich school districts and not enough to poor ones. We devote too much time and resources to extracurricular activities that don’t involve serious learning. Meanwhile we need more skilled workers in the fields of science, technology, and information systems. Therefore, our educational system needs to be improved.
This argument is so simple that each sentence is essentially a predicate that can be evaluated for truthfulness. The last sentence, the conclusion, is also a predicate (or easily convertible into one) and is special because it is supported by the other predicates. Therefore, we have two tasks: to rate each predicate’s truthfulness and to rate the extent to which the conclusion is warranted from the predicate.
We might have the idea that this is not a serious argument because it consists of a bunch of general statements without real specificity. It does not cite the scores of our students on standardized tests vs. other countries. But it is the type of argument people make. In fact, a person did make it, just now without looking anything up and without LLM (which would have done a much better job). The person who made it is “pretty sure” he can back it all up with hard facts from authoritative sources but, being a person, does not remember them right now. We will turn to the issue of sources in a moment.
We might also critique this by saying it is not an example of exorcising our preconceived notions and coming to free-form conclusions from disparate, singular predicates. That is certainly true in the here and now when the argument was written. The writer of this opinion already knew our education system needed improvement. But it was not true before he reached that conclusion in his life. He was not brought up to think that our educational system needed improvement, especially with respect to other countries. Quite the contrary, he was brought up, many decades ago, to believe in American preeminence in pretty much everything. He was brought up to believe in “the system”. It was only through years of discovery (and genuine changes in the world) that this less rosy conclusion was reached.
Let’s evaluate each predicate involved in this argument which, for this simple case, maps to each sentence. We will evaluate them based on the 1-15 scale we developed a long time ago to determine trustworthiness. In fairness, this isn’t quite the same as “truthfulness” but let’s try it anyway. I scored this myself and then used Claude to do it for me (see raw prompt/response below) but since Claude agreed with me on all the predicates, I’ll omit repeating the two results.