关闭

Shaun Nichols
{"title":"关闭","authors":"Shaun Nichols","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198869153.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When people learn normative systems, they do so based on limited evidence. Many of the possible actions that are available to an agent have never been explicitly permitted or prohibited. But people will often need to figure out whether those unspecified actions are permitted or prohibited. How does a learner resolve this incompleteness? It seems that at least for many people in many contexts, there is an assumption that if an action-type is not expressly forbidden, then acts of that type are permitted. This “closure principle” is one of Liberty. But how might such a principle be acquired? This chapter argues that the statistical technique of pedagogical sampling provides an answer. If one is taught a rule system via a set of prohibitions, this provides reason to think that the set of actions in the domain that are not mentioned in the prohibitions are permitted.","PeriodicalId":383766,"journal":{"name":"Rational Rules","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Closure\",\"authors\":\"Shaun Nichols\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198869153.003.0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"When people learn normative systems, they do so based on limited evidence. Many of the possible actions that are available to an agent have never been explicitly permitted or prohibited. But people will often need to figure out whether those unspecified actions are permitted or prohibited. How does a learner resolve this incompleteness? It seems that at least for many people in many contexts, there is an assumption that if an action-type is not expressly forbidden, then acts of that type are permitted. This “closure principle” is one of Liberty. But how might such a principle be acquired? This chapter argues that the statistical technique of pedagogical sampling provides an answer. If one is taught a rule system via a set of prohibitions, this provides reason to think that the set of actions in the domain that are not mentioned in the prohibitions are permitted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":383766,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rational Rules\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rational Rules\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198869153.003.0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rational Rules","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198869153.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当人们学习规范系统时,他们是基于有限的证据来学习的。代理人可以采取的许多可能的行动从未得到明确的允许或禁止。但人们通常需要弄清楚这些未指明的行为是允许的还是禁止的。学习者如何解决这种不完整性?似乎至少对很多人来说,在很多情况下,有一个假设,如果一种行为类型没有被明确禁止,那么这种类型的行为是允许的。这种“封闭原则”是自由主义的原则之一。但是怎样才能获得这样的原则呢?本章认为,教学抽样的统计技术提供了一个答案。如果一个人是通过一组禁止来学习规则系统的,那么这就提供了理由来认为禁止中没有提到的领域中的一组操作是允许的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Closure
When people learn normative systems, they do so based on limited evidence. Many of the possible actions that are available to an agent have never been explicitly permitted or prohibited. But people will often need to figure out whether those unspecified actions are permitted or prohibited. How does a learner resolve this incompleteness? It seems that at least for many people in many contexts, there is an assumption that if an action-type is not expressly forbidden, then acts of that type are permitted. This “closure principle” is one of Liberty. But how might such a principle be acquired? This chapter argues that the statistical technique of pedagogical sampling provides an answer. If one is taught a rule system via a set of prohibitions, this provides reason to think that the set of actions in the domain that are not mentioned in the prohibitions are permitted.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Rationality and Morality Closure Scope Moral Empiricism Priors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1