[EM] Reply re: standards

[Blake Cretney]

MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

 >
 > Blake replied:
 >
 > But what your saying is that you can't possibly rationally defend your
 > standards.
 >
 > I reply:
 >
 > That's right.
 >
At least we've got that settled.

 >
 > Some people speak of symmetry as if it were a standard. I've heard
 > that from Saari, and from some margins advocates on this list. How to
 > explain that? No doubt symmetry has appeal. What more explanation is
 > needed?

It's unfortunate that Saari chose to name his criterion reversal
symmetry because that makes it sound like some kind of aesthetic point.
  But that isn't his argument or mine.  I've explained it over and over.
  See http://condorcet.org/rp/IRV.shtml

 > You imply that it's surprising, and calls for explanation, that
 > different people have different standards. I suggest that what would
 > be surprising would be if everyone's standards were the same.

I don't think it's surprising at all.  I might try to explain it though,
to deal with the argument that if there is an absolute best candidate,
we should be able to all agree.

 > Do I have to try to explain why you believe that there's a genuine
 > objective
 > absolute best candidate? Obviously that belief of yours has great
 > influence on your standards, since your main standard is finding which
 > candidate is most likely to be that genuine objective absolute best.
 > I don't know why you believe that.

But you would agree that either there is, or there isn't an absolute
best candidate, even though we don't agree on which one is the case.  A
standard based on finding this candidate makes sense only if there is an
absolute best candidate to be found.  So, in fact, there is, at least in
this case a way of judging standards that is based on objective truth.
  It is possible to say that someone is right or wrong for upholding the
standard (at least for particular reasons).

Do you have to explain why I believe that there's a genuine objective
absolute best candidate?  No you don't.  I've already done that.
  Instead you should try to refute my arguments.

---
Blake Cretney (http://condorcet.org)