Kaj_Sotala | v1.2.0Jul 29th 2020 | (+232) | ||
Kaj_Sotala | v1.1.0Jul 29th 2020 | (+5/-7) | ||
Kaj_Sotala | v1.0.0Jul 29th 2020 | (+1355) |
Note that one can make use of e.g. Bayes Theorem or decision theory without being a law-thinker. (Thus,Thus, articles covering the above topics do not automatically fall under this tag.) A "toolbox-thinker" may use such tools if that seems warranted, without considering them normative standards to compare things against. This difference is discussed in Toolbox-thinking and Law-thinking.
Law-thinking is an approach in which action and reasoning are thought to have theoretical criteria (laws) specifying the optimal actions and belief adjustments in any given situation. These criteria may be impossible to apply to a situation directly, and one may be forced to use only rough approximations. But one can still evaluate the approximations based on how well they match the optimal criteria.
Some concepts which have been used as theoretical criteria in law-thinking:
Note that one can make use of e.g. Bayes Theorem or decision theory without being a law-thinker. (Thus, articles covering the above topics do not automatically fall under this tag.) A "toolbox-thinker" may use such tools if that seems warranted, without considering them normative standards to compare things against. This difference is discussed in Toolbox-thinking and Law-thinking.
The relationship between laws and approximations resembles that of between physics and engineering. Physics specify the laws by which the world works, while engineering tries to find practical solutions as constrained by those laws.