It follows from what has been said that a vague thought has more
likelihood of being true than a precise one. To try and hit an object
with a vague thought is like trying to hit the bull's eye with a lump of
putty: when the putty reaches the target, it flattens out all over it,
and probably covers the bull's eye along with the rest. To try and hit
an object with a precise thought is like trying to hit the bull's
eye with a bullet. The advantage of the precise thought is that it
distinguishes between the bull's eye and the rest of the target. For
example, if the whole target is represented by the fungus family and the
bull's eye by mushrooms, a vague thought which can only hit the target
as a whole is not much use from a culinary point of view. And when I
merely remember that I met a man, my memory may be very inadequate to my
practical requirements, since it may make a great difference whether I
met Brown or Jones. The memory "I met Jones" is relatively precise. It
is accurate if I met Jones, inaccurate if I met Brown, but precise in
either case as against the mere recollection that I met a man.
The distinction between accuracy and precision is however, not
fundamental. We may omit precision from out thoughts and confine
ourselves to the distinction between accuracy and vagueness. We may then
set up the following definitions:
An instrument is "reliable" with respect to a given set of stimuli when
to stimuli which are not relevantly different it gives always responses
which are not relevantly different.
An instrument is a "measure" of a set of stimuli which are serially
ordered when its responses, in all cases where they are relevantly
different, are arranged in a series in the same order.
The "degree of accuracy" of an instrument which is a reliable measurer
is the ratio of the difference of response to the difference of stimulus
in cases where the difference of stimulus is small.* That is to say, if
a small difference of stimulus produces a great difference of response,
the instrument is very accurate; in the contrary case, very inaccurate.
* Strictly speaking, the limit of this, i.e. the derivative
of the response with respect to the stimulus.
A mental response is called "vague" in proportion to its lack of
accuracy, or rather precision.
These definitions will be found useful, not only in the case of memory,
but in almost all questions concerned with knowledge.
It should be observed that vague beliefs, so far from being necessarily
false, have a better chance of truth than precise ones, though their
truth is less valuable than that of precise beliefs, since they do not
distinguish between occurrences which may differ in important ways.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account