Picking a winner is arguably the work of subjective rather
than objective judgment.
Not exact matches
From what I have said about the Bank's approach, it should be clear that any differences between our
judgments and the markets»
judgments can occur not only because our inflation forecasts might differ, but also because our basic
objectives are much broader
than the markets», and our horizons are much longer.
They know that they are more
objective, rational and logical while they were planning the trade / before they entered, so they trust their
judgment in that state of mind rather
than when the trade is live.
We might argue philosophically from the perspective of, say, a radical epistemological relativism, that the use of terms is pointless and science is irrational, etc; but you would need to have something even more radical to say
than Paul Feyerabend to surprise anyone who is already scientifically literate and using their best
judgment to arrive at rational and
objective knowledge about the world.
There is no particularly
objective way to combine all this, but it is far better to have the expert
judgments made at the level of relatively unambiguous premises, and then combine these in some way, rather
than doing the expert
judgment at the level of the hypothesis, which is subject to all sorts of crazy mental models and biases especially if the hypothesis regards a complex system.
Therefore they have decided to support the application of the precautionary principle by stating the uncertainties as less
than any
objective systematic analysis can support and using subjective
judgments as a more reliable basis for quantitative conclusions
than they really are.
Pamela Babcock, in a paper written for SHRM, cautions that this should be an
objective process rather
than relying on «body language» or other intuitive
judgments to identify the culprits.