I’m confused about the difference between self-ratification and self-consistency. For example, CDT (as usually described) fights the hypothetical (“there are perfect predictors”) in Newcomb’s, by assigning non-zero probability to successful two-boxing, which has zero probability in the setup. Since the CDT is blind to this own shortcoming (is it? I assume it is, not sure if there is a formal proof of it, or what it would even mean to write out such a statement somewhat formally.), does it mean it’s not self-ratifying? inconsistent? As I said, confused...
Self-consistency is about not asserting contradictions; self-ratification is about asserting that the process that produced this very theory is likely to produce correct theories.
Theories completely blind to their own shortcomings can very well be consistent and self-ratifying (e.g. faith that one’s beliefs came from divine revelation, including the belief that one’s beliefs came from divine revelation).
Ah, makes sense. So self-ratification is about seeing oneself as trustworthy. Which is neither a necessary condition for a theory to be useful, nor a sufficient condition for it to be trustworthy from outside. But still a useful criterion when evaluating a theory.
I’m confused about the difference between self-ratification and self-consistency. For example, CDT (as usually described) fights the hypothetical (“there are perfect predictors”) in Newcomb’s, by assigning non-zero probability to successful two-boxing, which has zero probability in the setup. Since the CDT is blind to this own shortcoming (is it? I assume it is, not sure if there is a formal proof of it, or what it would even mean to write out such a statement somewhat formally.), does it mean it’s not self-ratifying? inconsistent? As I said, confused...
Self-consistency is about not asserting contradictions; self-ratification is about asserting that the process that produced this very theory is likely to produce correct theories.
Theories completely blind to their own shortcomings can very well be consistent and self-ratifying (e.g. faith that one’s beliefs came from divine revelation, including the belief that one’s beliefs came from divine revelation).
Ah, makes sense. So self-ratification is about seeing oneself as trustworthy. Which is neither a necessary condition for a theory to be useful, nor a sufficient condition for it to be trustworthy from outside. But still a useful criterion when evaluating a theory.