Epistemic

 Justification  and  Good  Decision  Process:    

“How  do  you  know  that?”  
Professor  Neil  Bearden  
INSEAD  
 
“There  are  no  facts,  only  interpretations.”  –  F.  Nietzsche  
 
“Que  sçay-­‐je?”  [What  do  I  know?]  –  M.  Montaigne  

It’d  be  difficult  to  argue  that  you  used  a  good  decision  process  if  you  didn’t  use  good  
information  –  or,  put  differently,  if  you  didn’t  treat  information  appropriately.  If  you  
treat  someone’s,  say,  (perhaps  biased)  judgment  as  a  fact,  then  you’re  not  following  
good  process.  A  judgment   may  have  some  information  value,  but  it’d  be  a  mistake  
to   give   it   the   same   weight   as   a   fact.   The   purpose   of   this   exercise   is   to   start  
practicing   a   very   basic,   but   absolutely   essential,   decision   skill:   Asking   whether  
claims  are  facts  or  judgments;  and,  if  the  latter,  how  credible  they  are.        
 
One  good  practice  –  especially  for  big  decisions  –  is  to  be  very  clear  (and  honest)  
on   what   are   facts   and   what   are   judgments.   You   should   be   clear   yourself   on   what  
the   status   is   of   your   own   claims   and   also   on   the   status   of   others’   claims.   This  
exercise  will  encourage  you  to  start  doing  this  more  deliberately.    
 
The   Exercise.   As   a   group,   debate   the   topics   below.   During   the   discussion,   allow  
everyone  to  present  points  that  are  relevant  to  the  topic.  For  the  purposes  of  this  
exercise,   try   to   distill   each   (significant   and   relevant)   raised   point   into   a   simple  
proposition   (or   even   a   “bullet-­‐point”,   if   that’s   easiest).     And   have   one   person  
summarize  this  information  in  writing  (on  a  flip  chart,  whiteboard,  in  a  notebook,  
wherever)  where  everyone  can  see  it.    
 
Put   less   politely,   argue   over   the   topics   below,   and   present   justifications   for   your  
positions.   Next   to   facts,   write   F;   next   to   judgments,   write   J.   For   each   proposition  
classified   as   a   judgment,   also   decide   (as   a   group)   how   much   epistemic   weight   it  
should   receive   (based   on   the   quality   of   the   provided   justification).   Assume   that  
facts   have   an   epistemic   weight   of   100,   and   that   judgments   can   have   weights  
between   0   (no   value)   and   100   (same   weight   as   a   fact).   An   example   of   a   board  
layout  is  displayed  in  Exhibit  1.      
 
The  (Suggested*)  Topic    
 
1.  Facebook’s  future  financial  performance.  
2. The  claim:  “Human  generated  climate  change  is  a  deeply  serious  economic  
problem.”  
3. The  claim:  “Women  tend  to  be  underpaid  relative  to  men.”    
4. The   claim:   “Democratic   government   is   superior   to   non-­‐democratic  
government.”  
 
*If  you  have  ideas  for  other  topics  that  are  worth  discussing  in  this  context,  please  feel  free  to  
suggest  them  to  your  group.  Ideally  a  topic  will  generate  a  lot  of  discussion,  and  a  mix  of  “facts”  and  
“judgments.”  Emotional  topics  work  well  for  this,  not  boring  ones.    
Exhibit  1.  Example  of  board  layout  for  the  group  discussion  for  a  given  
topic.  
If  “Judgment”,  
Epistemic  Status   determine  the  Epistemic  
Proposition   “Truth”  =  T   Weight  of  the  
“Judgment”  =  J   Proposition  (between  0  
and  100).  
  T  /  J    

  T  /  J    

  T  /  J    

  T  /  J    

  T  /  J    

  T  /  J    

  T  /  J    

  T  /  J    

  T  /  J    

  T  /  J