This may be wrong, but my feeling is that you have got three core concepts that work well together. Epistemic attitude provides a starting point for human inquiry and decision making. It tells us about an expectation about what is possible. This expectation translates into a personal credence scale which we use to assess the actual level of certainty we have about information. My theory is that each of us has a unique credence scale, and that these are often misaligned in practice even if our starting attitudes are the same (exploring why this is so might add depth to your analysis). Use of this unique credence scale leads to an expressed level of confidence about the information in front of us. It is this revealed level of confidence that drives the actions we choose individually and collectively.
The idea of adding 'meta information' by way of confidence intrigues me. I can see some value, but doubt that assessments in a way that it consistent enough to be useful in practice. I also whether it distracts from the important role values play in human decision making. Knowledge is a lot, but it is not everything.
I wonder whether adding certain types of 'meta information' would better open up the space for explicit recognition of the role values play, especially in group decision making. If the information in front of me is explicitly recognised as only being (say) 80% trustworthy, then I have to think about what basis I'm making my decisions on - as it can't just be the 'facts'. This might force a clearer recognition that I'm drawing on values and need to communicate those to other people.
To put it differently, the facts, evidence and data only ever take us so far and values always kick in. However, when we tell ourselves the facts and data are conclusive and not up for discussion, we tend to disguise the role of values or even pretend it doesn't exist. If we make the limits to our information clearer, it could force more discussions about values.
Liking this a lot.
This may be wrong, but my feeling is that you have got three core concepts that work well together. Epistemic attitude provides a starting point for human inquiry and decision making. It tells us about an expectation about what is possible. This expectation translates into a personal credence scale which we use to assess the actual level of certainty we have about information. My theory is that each of us has a unique credence scale, and that these are often misaligned in practice even if our starting attitudes are the same (exploring why this is so might add depth to your analysis). Use of this unique credence scale leads to an expressed level of confidence about the information in front of us. It is this revealed level of confidence that drives the actions we choose individually and collectively.
The idea of adding 'meta information' by way of confidence intrigues me. I can see some value, but doubt that assessments in a way that it consistent enough to be useful in practice. I also whether it distracts from the important role values play in human decision making. Knowledge is a lot, but it is not everything.
I wonder whether adding certain types of 'meta information' would better open up the space for explicit recognition of the role values play, especially in group decision making. If the information in front of me is explicitly recognised as only being (say) 80% trustworthy, then I have to think about what basis I'm making my decisions on - as it can't just be the 'facts'. This might force a clearer recognition that I'm drawing on values and need to communicate those to other people.
To put it differently, the facts, evidence and data only ever take us so far and values always kick in. However, when we tell ourselves the facts and data are conclusive and not up for discussion, we tend to disguise the role of values or even pretend it doesn't exist. If we make the limits to our information clearer, it could force more discussions about values.