I guess one could object that in you’re even more clueless sniper example, applying the POI between Hit and Not Hit is just as arbitrary as applying it between, e.g., Hit, Hit on his right, and Hit on his left. This is what Greaves (2016) -- and maybe others? -- called the “problem of multiple partitions”. In my original scenario, people might argue that there isn’t such a problem and that there is only one sensible way to apply POI. So it’d be ok to apply it in my case and not in yours.
I don’t know what to make of this objection, though. I’m not sure it makes sense. It feels a bit arbitrary to say “we can apply POI but only when there is one way of applying it that clearly seems more sensible”. Maybe this problem of multiple partitions is a reason to reject POI altogether (in situations of what Greaves call “complex cluelessness” at least, like in my sniper example).
Well obviously when you know that there are such options as Hit on his right, and Hit on his left you will apply POI to be indifferent between all the options.
But according to Even More Clueless Sniper experiment you don’t know that. All that you know is that there are two options Hit or No Hit. And then POI gives you 50% to hit.
In other words, the problem of multiple partitions happens only when you know about all this multiple options. And if you don;t know—then there is no problem.
Maybe this problem of multiple partitions is a reason to reject POI altogether
What we need to is to properly understand where does POI even comes from. That it’s not some magical principle that allows totally ignorant people to shoot better than trained snipers. That there is some systematic reason that allows to produce correct maps of the territory and POI is derived from it. If we understand the reason, such situations will cease to be mysterious.
Interesting, thanks!
I guess one could object that in you’re even more clueless sniper example, applying the POI between Hit and Not Hit is just as arbitrary as applying it between, e.g., Hit, Hit on his right, and Hit on his left. This is what Greaves (2016) -- and maybe others? -- called the “problem of multiple partitions”. In my original scenario, people might argue that there isn’t such a problem and that there is only one sensible way to apply POI. So it’d be ok to apply it in my case and not in yours.
I don’t know what to make of this objection, though. I’m not sure it makes sense. It feels a bit arbitrary to say “we can apply POI but only when there is one way of applying it that clearly seems more sensible”. Maybe this problem of multiple partitions is a reason to reject POI altogether (in situations of what Greaves call “complex cluelessness” at least, like in my sniper example).
Well obviously when you know that there are such options as Hit on his right, and Hit on his left you will apply POI to be indifferent between all the options.
But according to Even More Clueless Sniper experiment you don’t know that. All that you know is that there are two options Hit or No Hit. And then POI gives you 50% to hit.
In other words, the problem of multiple partitions happens only when you know about all this multiple options. And if you don;t know—then there is no problem.
What we need to is to properly understand where does POI even comes from. That it’s not some magical principle that allows totally ignorant people to shoot better than trained snipers. That there is some systematic reason that allows to produce correct maps of the territory and POI is derived from it. If we understand the reason, such situations will cease to be mysterious.