S Hein - Bookmarks

22Expand

Trust (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Winter 2006)

Tags: cmc, trust on 2008-09-21 and saved by2 people -All Annotations (52) -About

more fromplato.stanford.edu

for trust to be warranted (i.e. well-grounded), both parties
ought to be trustworthy
the more
monitoring and constraining s/he does, the less s/he trusts
that person
disappointment is the appropriate response
when one merely relied on someone to do something, but did not
trust him or her to do it. People who monitor and constrain other
people's behavior and do not allow them to prove their own
trustworthiness may rely on others, but they do not trust them. For,
while their reliance could be disappointed, it could not be betrayed.
Consider that one can rely on inanimate objects (such as alarm clocks),
but when they break, one is not betrayed, although one may feel
disappointed. Reliance without the possibility of betrayal is not
trust. Thus, people who rely on one another in a way that makes
betrayal impossible do not trust one another.
Rarely, if ever, do we trust people
completely (i.e. A simply trusts B). Instead, “trust is generally
a three-part relation: A trusts B to do X”
Some philosophers believe that trustworthiness can be
“compelled by the force of norms” or, more generally, by
the force of social constraints
An alternative to the social contract view is a view according to
which trustworthy people are motivated by their own interest to
maintain the relationship they have with the truster, which in turn
encourages them to encapsulate the interests of that person in their
own interests
In the end, like the social contract view, the
encapsulated interests view may describe reliability, but not
trustworthiness.
Risk-assessment theories in general are popular among
rational decision theorists and social contract theorists, who presume
that people are naturally self-interested.
these accounts, unlike the goodwill account,
fail to demand that the trustworthy person care about the
truster, or care about what he or she cares about. Such caring appears,
as we have seen, to be central to a complete account of
trustworthiness.
The particular reason why care is central is that it allows us to
distinguish between trust and mere reliance. I have said the two
differ, putatively, because only the former can be betrayed. But
why is that true? Why can trust be betrayed, but not mere
reliance? The answer Baier gives is that betrayal is the appropriate
response to someone on whom one relied to act out of goodwill, as
opposed to ill will, selfishness, or habit bred out of indifference
It is not
necessary, some say, because we can trust other people without
presuming that they have goodwill.
Although problematic, risk-assessment views do have their
merits. For example, they seem to make better sense of trusting that
strangers will be morally decent toward us, which surely can occur
without assuming that strangers have goodwill toward us.
Thus, optimism about goodwill is insufficient and,
according to Karen Jones, needs to be coupled with the expectation that
the trustee is “favorably moved by the thought that [you are]
counting on her” (1996, 9).
First, it appears that trust and rational reflection (e.g. on
whether one should be trusting) are in tension with one another. Since
trust inherently involves risk, any attempt to eliminate the risk
through rational reflection could eliminate the trust at the same time.
For example, it
suggests that rational trust will always be partial rather than
complete, because the rational truster is open to evidence that
contradicts his or her trust on this theory, while someone who trusts
completely in someone else lacks such openness.
While, paradigmatically, trust is a relation that holds between two
individuals, forces larger than those individuals inevitably shape
their trust in one another.
Trust enhances
cooperation; because it removes the incentive to check up on other
people, it makes cooperation with trust less complicated than
cooperation without it
The basic argument for the need to
trust what others say is that no one person has the time, intellect,
and experience necessary to learn, independently, facts about the world
that many of us do know.
Trudy Govier (1993) and Carolyn McLeod (2002) both
assert that to be motivated to choose and act in accordance with our
own values—that is, to choose and act autonomously—we need
to trust ourselves to do so.
While
destroying trust is usually quick and almost always dirty, creating
trust is often a slow and painful process
That many people feel compelled to say, “I wish I could trust
you,” suggests that Baier's view is correct: wishing or
wanting is not enough. But Richard Holton interprets her view
differently. According to him, Baier's point is that we can never
decide to trust, not that we can never decide to trust for motivational
purposes (1994).
Holton gives the nice
example of trusting a friend to be sincere without believing that the
friend will be sincere

2Expand

The Politics of Systems » Blog Archive » statistics vs. science (and why this is rather political)

Tags: cmc, power, software, data-mining on 2008-09-17 -All Annotations (2) -About

more fromthepoliticsofsystems.net

2Expand

Why the cloud cannot obscure the scientific method

Tags: cmc, cloud-computing, data-mining on 2008-09-16 and saved by6 people -All Annotations (4) -About

more fromarstechnica.com

2Expand

The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete

Tags: organization, data-mining, cmc on 2008-09-16 and saved by63 people -All Annotations (28) -About

more fromwww.wired.com

2Expand

WorldChanging: Tools, Models and Ideas for Building a Bright Green Future: Biomimicry For Green Design (A How-To)

Here is my attempt to describe the biomimetic approach, with a comprehensive list of principles.

Tags: biomimicry, integbi296, green-design on 2008-09-14 -All Annotations (2) -About

more fromwww.worldchanging.com

2Expand

WorldChanging: Demanding Hackability

The folks over at Make magazine have published a Maker's Bill of Rights to demand hackability in products. Interestingly, the things that make a device hackable are the same things that make a device repairable and upgradeable, so design-for-hacking is also green design.

Tags: design, hack, green-design, integbi296 on 2008-09-13 -All Annotations (2) -About

more fromwww.worldchanging.com

1Expand

Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community

Tags: identity, virtual-world, community, cmc on 2008-09-04 and saved by7 people -All Annotations (28) -About

more fromsmg.media.mit.edu

5Expand

676 F.2d 400

Tags: to-read, iplaw on 2008-09-02 -All Annotations (0) -About

more frombulk.resource.org

The court found that the Company's high security policy for its Ace tubular locks, of which the confidential key code data were a part, was a "valuable business or trade secret-type asset" of the Company, and that the Fanbergs' publication of their compilation of these codes so undermined the Company's policy as to constitute "common law unfair competition in the form of an unfair business practice
(3) that the District Court applied erroneously the common law doctrine of trade secrets in concluding that the Fanbergs had committed an "unfair business practice" under Section 3369.
Appellants argue that the District Court erroneously concluded that they are liable under Section 3369 for acquiring appellee's trade secret through improper means. We agree, and on this basis we reverse the District Court.
Trade secrets do not enjoy the absolute monopoly protection afforded patented processes, for example, and trade secrets will lose their character as private property when the owner divulges them or when they are discovered through proper means.
The court's former conclusion is sound enough: in their fiduciary relationship with lock owners, individual locksmiths are reposed with a confidence and trust by their customers, of which disclosure of the customers' key codes would certainly be a breach. This duty, however, could give rise only to an action by "injured" lock owners against the individual locksmiths, not by the Company against the locksmiths or against the Fanbergs.