Hi Bob,
-> HW>    Further, consider what you have called 'evidence of something
-> HW> [someone?--HW] being trustworthy.'  I submit that is a mistaken
-> HW> view.  Take the case of your banker who {apparently} safeguards
-> HW> your funds.  Would that be evidence.  No, I submit, for  lacking
-> HW> trust, you might well presume he--like any con artist-- is merely
-> HW> setting you up by acting honest/trustworthy.
->   Actually, I don't trust *any* banker.  ;^)
->
->   I decided on my bank because it had already built a reputation, not
-> because I blindly trusted it first.
   This is merely going on someone's word on the issue.  That
merely introduces regress, but does not solve the problem
{how do the first customers decide whether to trust the back?}.
-> With personal relationships, you
-> take a small chance at first.  When they prove themselves, then I
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See 1)
-> extend trust that far, and take a slightly bigger chance, then extend
-> more trust if they prove trustworthy with the extra trust, on and on.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See 2)
   1) Unless you trust, they can't prove themselves.
So I disagree that you can be truly neutral, but "taking a small
chance."  That would make impossible the accumulation of evidence.
   2) All con-artists know of your gradualist scheme.  Hence they,
in the beginning, ape trustworthiness--e.g. repay small debts,
or lose small bets and make good.
   All this goes, in pholosphical terms to the problem of
empiricism:  is there "data" *out there* ready to be collected,
or do we choose, select, and mold our data according to our theories.
I think you can see the parallel with the above issue of who to
trust.
   Cheers, Hal.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
---------------