Ockham's Razor and Algorithmic Bias

  Human beings are biased. That point is undeniable. As a result, the algorithms and models we create are biased. Hume identifies that induction is necessary (Johnson 3). If human beings only believed conclusions to be true when they could prove them through deduction, we would rarely believe anything. We have to rely on induction to comprehend the world around us.

While induced conclusions are uncertain, they are usually likely. The point of induction is to create a model of reality. There is no point in following such a model if it is not likely; thus, wise induction uses uncertainties to create a likely picture of reality. 

Induction is philosophy. Every single philosophical claim is debatable. When we philosophize, we are trying to build an understanding of reality based on uncertainties. Even the most basic observations, e.g., the sky is blue, is not certain as we cannot be certain that our senses are telling us the truth. If one wants to construct a philosophical argument, one has to pick the premises that they believe are most likely to be true, argue why they are most likely true, and make inductions based on those premises.

The question then becomes: How do we choose which premises are true. At this point, I argue that it is best to invoke Ockham’s razor. In other words, the theory that requires fewer assumptions is most likely true. If we know that human value judgments and assumptions are biased, why would we want to include more of them in our discussion of reality? Thus, we should rely on theories that include fewer assumptions.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does the social reality imply a natural reality?

I’m very interested in understanding where the boundary between what we might consider the (or a) ‘natural’ reality and our ‘social’ reality occurs. Professor Toole offers a compelling account of how the ideology of the ruling class shapes the body of knowledge and the conceptual tools available to understand social reality. Professor Toole’s account seems to imply the impossibility of social structures as being ‘natural.’ That is, the term natural social structure or formation would be an oxymoron. She writes, “social structures are…constituted by our choices and actions,” (4) which seems to indicate that social structures are the result of human choices and actions, and so they cannot exist in the absence of them. This also seems to suggest a division between our ‘social’ reality exclusively defined by and dependent on human action and choice and a ‘natural’ reality of things not affected by humans, say the ocean and uranium. I am interested in the boundary and relationship between t...
Read more

Is cancel culture democratic (with a small "d" even though it is also Democratic with a big "D")?

Regarding Kara's Post: I want to try and tease out how Kara's blog post fits the college into Anderson's image of a private government. It seems like Kara's suggesting that the college itself is the private government. The professors are the governors and the students are the governed. The college constitutes a government because a government "exists wherever some have the authority to issue orders to others, backed by sanctions" (Anderson 42). Professors can issue orders by assigning tasks students must perform, and professors can sanction students who fail to complete these tasks or fail to do them successfully by giving them poor or failing grades in courses. The college is a private government because the "governed are kept out of decision-making" (45). The students do not, for the most part, come up with their own assignments or come up with grading rubrics for those assignments.  I agree with Kara, based on the image of the college as a private...
Read more

Better Model?

     On page 54, Beitz says that human rights are like natural rights in that they are "critical standards" not determined by legal rules, but unlike natural rights in that they do not presuppose one view about their justification. He seems to be basing this off of Maritain's conclusion that human rights are a common ground for action despite different reasons for justification for different people. He uses this to say that human rights are not "out there" as natural rights are and continues the argument on 57. He argues that there seems to be no good reason for why we should  conceive of human rights as natural ones.      Beitz points to natural rights theorists like Locke, conceived of natural rights " formulate constraints on the use of a government’s coercive power in circumstances of religious and moral diversity" (57). While I suspect that Locke would argue that he had other reasons for posing these as natural rigthts and this was a just a desira...
Read more