I’m one of the judges of the competition. My comments shouldn’t be taken as a full review of a post. And, unfortunately, I won’t have capacity to comment on every post or engage with all replies. Thanks so much to everyone who entered!
(Writing this quickly, sorry.)
I thought the defense of gradedness was very interesting. I worry that any candidate for graded c-betterness is going to have very unappealing properties. For example, the difference-of-midpoints rule is going to violate independence, which I think is rough for a relation that’s supposed to capture c-betterness, because it means the sign of CD(A, B) can flip by just adding background consequences that don’t differ between A and B.
I wonder if we want to instead say that c-betterness is itself vague, which means that there would not be a discrete jump between determinate and indeterminate betterness. You would still have to make an arbitrary choice about where to draw a line for the purposes of decision-making, though.
I’m one of the judges of the competition. My comments shouldn’t be taken as a full review of a post. And, unfortunately, I won’t have capacity to comment on every post or engage with all replies. Thanks so much to everyone who entered!
(Writing this quickly, sorry.)
I thought the defense of gradedness was very interesting. I worry that any candidate for graded c-betterness is going to have very unappealing properties. For example, the difference-of-midpoints rule is going to violate independence, which I think is rough for a relation that’s supposed to capture c-betterness, because it means the sign of CD(A, B) can flip by just adding background consequences that don’t differ between A and B.
I wonder if we want to instead say that c-betterness is itself vague, which means that there would not be a discrete jump between determinate and indeterminate betterness. You would still have to make an arbitrary choice about where to draw a line for the purposes of decision-making, though.