Relevance is the concept of one topic being connected to another topic in a way that makes it useful to consider the second topic when considering the first. The concept of relevance is studied in many different fields, including cognitive sciences, logic, and library and information science. Most fundamentally, however, it is studied in epistemology (the theory of knowledge). Different theories of knowledge have different implications for what is considered relevant and these fundamental views have implications for all other fields as well.
Definition
"Something (A) is relevant to a task (T) if it increases the likelihood of accomplishing the goal (G), which is implied by T." (Hjørland & Sejer Christensen, 2002).[1]
A thing might be relevant, a document or a piece of information may be relevant. The basic understanding of relevance does not depend on whether we speak of "things" or "information". For example, the Gandhian principles are of great relevance in today's world.
Epistemology
If you believe that schizophrenia is caused by bad communication between mother and child, then family interaction studies become relevant. If, on the other hand, you subscribe to a genetic theory of relevance then the study of genes becomes relevant. If you subscribe to the epistemology of empiricism, then only intersubjectively controlled observations are relevant. If, on the other hand, you subscribe to feminist epistemology, then the sex of the observer becomes relevant.
Epistemology is not just one domain among others. Epistemological views are always at play in any domain. Those views determine or influence what is regarded relevant.
Logic
In formal reasoning, relevance has proved an important but elusive concept. It is important because the solution of any problem requires the prior identification of the relevant elements from which a solution can be constructed. It is elusive, because the meaning of relevance appears to be difficult or impossible to capture within conventional logical systems. The obvious suggestion that q is relevant to p if q is implied by p breaks down because under standard definitions of material implication, a false proposition implies all other propositions. However though 'iron is a metal' may be implied by 'cats lay eggs' it doesn't seem to be relevant to it the way in which 'cats are mammals' and 'mammals give birth to living young' are relevant to each other. If one states "I love ice cream," and another person responds "I have a friend named Brad Cook," then these statements are not relevant. However, if one states "I love ice cream," and another person responds "I have a friend named Brad Cook who also likes ice cream," this statement now becomes relevant because it relates to the first person's idea.
Another proposal defines relevance or, more accurately, irrelevance information-theoretically.[2] It is easiest to state in terms of variables, which might reflect the values of measurable hypotheses or observation statements. The conditional entropy of an observation variable e conditioned on a variable h characterizing alternative hypotheses provides a measure of the irrelevance of the observation variable e to the set of competing hypotheses characterized by h. It is useful combined with measures of the information content of the variable e in terms of its entropy. One can then subtract the content of e that is irrelevant to h (given by its conditional entropy conditioned on h) from the total information content of e (given by its entropy) to calculate the amount of information the variable e contains about the set of hypotheses characterized by h. Relevance (via the concept of irrelevance) and information content then characterize the observation variable and can be used to measure its sensitivity and specificity (respectively) as a test for alternative hypotheses.
More recently a number of theorists[who?] have sought to account for relevance in terms of "possible world logics" in intensional logic. Roughly, the idea is that necessary truths are true in all possible worlds, contradictions (logical falsehoods) are true in no possible worlds, and contingent propositions can be ordered in terms of the number of possible worlds in which they are true. Relevance is argued to depend upon the "remoteness relationship" between an actual world in which relevance is being evaluated and the set of possible worlds within which it is true.
Application
Cognitive science and pragmatics
In 1986, Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson drew attention to the central importance of relevance decisions in reasoning and communication. They proposed an account of the process of inferring relevant information from any given utterance. To do this work, they used what they called the "Principle of Relevance": namely, the position that any utterance addressed to someone automatically conveys the presumption of its own optimal relevance. The central idea of Sperber and Wilson's theory is that all utterances are encountered in some context, and the correct interpretation of a particular utterance is the one that allows most new implications to be made in that context on the basis of the least amount of information necessary to convey it. For Sperber and Wilson, relevance is conceived as relative or subjective, as it depends upon the state of knowledge of a hearer when they encounter an utterance.
Sperber and Wilson stress that this theory is not intended to account for every intuitive application of the English word "relevance". Relevance, as a technical term, is restricted to relationships between utterances and interpretations, and so the theory cannot account for intuitions such as the one that relevance relationships obtain in problems involving physical objects. If a plumber needs to fix a leaky faucet, for example, some objects and tools are relevant (e.g. a wrench) and others are not (e.g. a waffle iron). And, moreover, the latter seems to be irrelevant in a manner which does not depend upon the plumber's knowledge, or the utterances used to describe the problem.
A theory of relevance that seems to be more readily applicable to such instances of physical problem solving has been suggested by Gorayska and Lindsay in a series of articles published during the 1990s. The key feature of their theory is the idea that relevance is goal-dependent. An item (e.g., an utterance or object) is relevant to a goal if and only if it can be an essential element of some plan capable of achieving the desired goal. This theory embraces both propositional reasoning and the problem-solving activities of people such as plumbers, and defines relevance in such a way that what is relevant is determined by the real world (because what plans will work is a matter of empirical fact) rather than the state of knowledge or belief of a particular problem solver.
Economics
The economist John Maynard Keynes saw the importance of defining relevance to the problem of calculating risk in economic decision-making. He suggested that the relevance of a piece of evidence, such as a true proposition, should be defined in terms of the changes it produces of estimations of the probability of future events. Specifically, Keynes proposed that new evidence is irrelevant to a proposition , given old evidence , if and only if , otherwise, the proposition is relevant.
There are technical problems with this definition, for example, the relevance of a piece of evidence can be sensitive to the order in which other pieces of evidence are received.
Law
The meaning of "relevance" in U.S. law is reflected in Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. That rule defines relevance as "having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determinations of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." In other words, if a fact were to have no bearing on the truth or falsity of a conclusion, it would be legally irrelevant.
Library and information science
| Recommender systems |
|---|
| Concepts |
| Methods and challenges |
| Implementations |
| Research |
This field has considered when documents (or document representations) retrieved from databases are relevant or non-relevant. Given a conception of relevance, two measures have been applied: Precision and recall:
Recall = a : (a + c) X 100%, where a = number of retrieved, relevant documents, c = number of non-retrieved, relevant documents (sometimes termed "silence"). Recall is thus an expression of how exhaustive a search for documents is.
Precision = a : (a + b) X 100%, where a = number of retrieved, relevant documents, b = number of retrieved, non-relevant documents (often termed "noise").
Precision is thus a measure of the amount of noise in document-retrieval.
Relevance itself has in the literature often been based on what is termed "the system's view" and "the user's view". Hjørland (2010) criticize these two views and defends a "subject knowledge view of relevance".
Politics
During the 1960s, relevance became a fashionable buzzword, meaning roughly 'relevance to social concerns', such as racial equality, poverty, social justice, world hunger, world economic development, and so on. The implication was that some subjects, e.g., the study of medieval poetry and the practice of corporate law, were not worthwhile because they did not address pressing social issues.[citation needed]
See also
- Source criticism
- Description
- Distraction
- Information-action ratio
- Information overload
- Intention
- Intuitionistic logic
- Kripke semantics
- Relevance theory
- Rubled
References
 | This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (June 2009) |
- Apgar, David (2006). Risk Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Publishing.
- Gorayska B. & R. O. Lindsay (1993). The Roots of Relevance. Journal of Pragmatics 19, 301–323. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press.
- Hjørland, Birger (2010). The foundation of the concept of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 217-237.
- Keynes, J. M. (1921). Treatise on Probability. London: MacMillan
- Lindsay, R. & Gorayska, B. (2002) Relevance, Goals and Cognitive Technology. International Journal of Cognitive Technology, 1, (2), 187–232
- Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1986/1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1987). Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Science, 10, 697–754.
- Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (2004). Relevance Theory. In Horn, L.R. & Ward, G. (eds.) 2004 The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 607-632. http://www.dan.sperber.fr/?p=93
- Zhang, X, H. (1993). A Goal-Based Relevance Model and its Application to Intelligent Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Oxford Brookes University, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, October, 1993.
External links
- Malcolm Gladwell - Blink - full show: TVOntario interview regarding "snap judgements" and Blink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance
Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to persuade without providing any evidence.
Appeal to the stone is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it is an informal fallacy, which means that it relies on inductive reasoning in an argument to justify an assertion. Informal fallacies contain erroneous reasoning in content of the argument and not the form or structure of it, as opposed to formal fallacies, which contain erroneous reasoning in argument form.
Example
- Speaker A: Infectious diseases are caused by tiny organisms that are not visible to unaided eyesight.
- Speaker B: Your statement is false.
- Speaker A: Why do you think that it is false?
- Speaker B: It sounds like nonsense.
Speaker B denies Speaker A's claim without providing evidence to support their denial. This may not be unreasonable if the claim is inherently self-contradictory ("I am not speaking to you right now") or too malformed to be a sensical claim at all, of course.
History
_Frontispiece.png)
Origin
The name "appeal to the stone" originates from an argument between Dr. Samuel Johnson and James Boswell over George Berkeley's theory of subjective idealism (known previously as "immaterialism"). Subjective idealism states that reality is dependent on a person's perceptions of the world and that material objects are intertwined with one's perceptions of these material objects.[1]
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, "I refute it thus."[2]
— James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson
Johnson's intent, apparently,[3] was to imply that it was absurd of Berkeley to call such a stone "immaterial," when in fact Johnson could kick it with his foot.
Classification
Informal logical fallacies
Informal logical fallacies are misconceptions derived from faulty reasoning. Informal logical fallacies use inductive reasoning and thus can cause errors in reasoning by creating the illusion of a sound argument when it is not sound.[4]
Fallacy of irrelevance
Irrelevant conclusions, also known as ignoratio elenchi (Latin for ''ignoring the list" or "ignoring refutation'') or missing the point, follows a similar structure to appeal to the stone. As an informal fallacy, it may not be valid or sound in its reasoning.[5] Irrelevant conclusions hold similarity to appeal to the stone because it provides evidence towards a conclusion that has already been formed about the subject matter being debated, instead of the original subject that was being discussed.[6] Dr. Samuel Johnson’s refutation of Bishop Berkeley’s theory of immaterialism by kicking a stone did not actually address the theory, but rather asserted a conclusion incompatible with the theory and then echoed his conclusion without discussing the subject matter of the theory of immaterialism directly.
Inductive reasoning
Appeal to the stone utilizes inductive reasoning to derive its argument. Formal fallacies use deductive reasoning and formal properties to structure an argument and inductive arguments do not use this structure. Inductive reasoning is reasoning with uncertain conclusions because of inferences made about a specific situation, object, or event.[7] In the context of Appeal to the stone, inductive reasoning is asserted against an initial claim without further elaboration. Inductive arguments can be affected by the acquisition of new information or evidence that can debunk an inductive assumption.[8]
Inductive reasoning asserts that the probability of a conclusion being correct is adequate evidence to support the argument. Inductive arguments are judged on the strength or weakness of an argument and an argument's strength is subjective to each participant based on preconceptions about the subject being discussed.
The weakness of inductive reasoning (in comparison to deductive reasoning), lays in the inability to gauge the validity or soundness of claims within an argument. Validity of an argument is based on whether the information presented is factual. However, if evidence presented to prove a conclusion are false, this can provide a valid argument based on false information to substantiate the conclusion. Therefore, soundness of an argument is deemed when the assumptions of an argument are factual. Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive arguments cannot prove their deductive validity and therefore lead to the problem of induction.
Structure of arguments
Arguments are typically structured by a claim being defended with reasoning and evidence. It typically consists of statements that provide premises to support a conclusion. In the case of appeal to the stone, there is an explicit conclusion but it is likely not substantiated with many premises to validate the conclusion being asserted.[9]
According to the theory of argumentation, there must assumptions or premises that follow a method of reasoning or deduction to form the conclusion or point. An appeal to the stone's lack of evidence to substantiate the rejection of the initial claim puts the burden of proof on the other member of the argument and limits rebuttals.
Criticisms
Restricted debate
In contrast to the burden of proof (philosophy), appeal to the stone does not allow for debate past the dismissal of the first claim. Therefore, the burden of proof is placed upon the person who made the initial statement to prove it is correct. However, when appeal to the stone is used to argue, there is a diminished ability for a person to create a rebuttal due to lack of elaboration on why there has been a disagreement.[10] Additionally, the appeal to the stone technique is often paired with other logical fallacies that restrict the ability to further dialogue.[11] Discussions when presenting an appeal to the stone argument, it can use ad-hominem attacks[12] to avoid discussion of the discussion’s subject matter, or it can be paired with a straw-man argument to discredit the other member of the discussion.[13]
Two systems theory
The two systems theory, by Israeli psychologist Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, explains the reasoning behind illogical fallacies. In the two systems theory, decision-making is categorized into system 1 and system 2. System 1 decision-making only uses quick and usually heuristic based interpretations to aid in low-engagement decisions. System 2 decision-making uses more deliberate and rational consideration when creating a conclusion.[14]
Many illogical fallacies employ quick judgement based on emotion to create conclusions in system 1 type decision-making. However, by having a skeptical mindset on one’s own conclusions and engaging in methodological thinking, one can avoid an illogical fallacy.[15]
Toulmin's argumentation framework
As demonstrated in Toulmin’s argumentation framework, the grounds of an assumption require warrant and backing to legitimize the claim and prove the soundness of the conclusion. The framework involves a claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing. The initial claim of an argument is the assertion that the arguer is trying to confirm to another member in an argument. The grounds of an argument are the evidence to support the initial assertion. The warrant are the assumptions that are being used to connect the grounds to the claim. Backing is any additional supporting evidence to prove a claim and to support the warrant. Qualifiers are used to show that a claim may not always be correct (such as: sometimes, rather, somewhat) to show that the claim may not always apply to every situation. Finally, a rebuttal provides another member in a discussion to propose another valid claim for the argument.[16]
In an appeal to the stone, there is only grounds and claims without providing valid warrants or backing to substantiate their claim. Furthermore, appeals to the stone typically do not use qualifiers, limiting the scope of a rebuttal. Without providing valid evidence in an appeal to the stone, it is difficult to provide a rebuttal to the claim.[citation needed]
Similar theories
Reductio ad absurdum
Appeal to the stone shares similarities in structure to reductio ad absurdum (Latin for “reduction to absurdity”) which states that an argument's assumptions or methods will lead to absurd conclusions.[17] Although appeal to the stone does not explicitly state that an initial statement is absurd, a rejection of the initial claim often times presumes that the initial claim is incorrect or absurd. Reductio ad absurdum makes the assertion that if an initial claim is true, then some other absurd conclusion must also be true.[18]
Begging the question
Begging the question, also called petitio principii, is a conclusion based on an assumption that requires further proof or elaboration to be validated.[19] Begging the question, is more formally synonymous with “ignoring a question under the assumption it has already been answered.” Begging the question often creates further questioning and colloquial use of this theory has been repurposed to mean “a question that begs to be answered”.[20]
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam is Latin and is associated with repeating something to a sickening or excessive degree. This fallacy can be used in arguments to by asserting an opinion on a subject matter to an excessive degree. In an appeal to the stone, with a lack of evidence to support a rejection of a claim, it can likely lead to an ad nauseam argument. If an argument with an appeal to the stone cannot be resolved, it will likely lead to both parties arguing until they are bored of the discussion and cannot come to a satisfactory conclusion.[21]
Denialism
Denialism is a rejection of facts and reality even when there is strong evidence.[22] Those using denialism are likely using it with ulterior motives such as self-interests or to avoid an uncomfortable truth. The most common way to rebut a denial is through debunking by dissecting the root of the belief and providing evidence to disprove their idea, point by point.
See also
- Ad hominem
- Solvitur ambulando
- Ignoratio elenchi
- Appeal to ridicule
- Argumentum ad baculum
- Proof by assertion
- I'm entitled to my opinion
- Red herring
References
- "Definition of DENIALISM". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 20 November 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone
No comments:
Post a Comment