Neyer/dewdrop can I think be combined with neyer/respect, which I think solves the problem of sockpuppets fairly well by normalizing ones respect vector.
such that someone making many sockpuppets should not grant them extra influence.
In addition, while in many cases, the source of a line of reasoning is generally irrelevant (it would be just as useful if it was generated by a random number generator) (these lines of reason are I think those regarding things which can be known a priori).
However, there are some claims for which it is either impossible or impractical to express/verify such an argument.
For example, I could not present to you a logical argument that shows the current temperature where I am.
If I had a thermometer with me, I could tell you, or even send you a picture of the thermometer.
But I could not prove it.
If a random data stream produced such a picture, you would have no reason to believe that the picture accurately represented the current temperature of my surroundings.
For things such as this, (I think these are those things which can only be known a posteriori , and which one has not personally observed) one has to take into account the source of the claims, and so one generally has to consider how much one trusts those who are making the claim (or, how much you trust them in the given context, which a single number perhaps would not be entirely sufficient, but it seems to be at least a partial solution)
In addition, while in many cases, the source of a line of reasoning is generally irrelevant (it would be just as useful if it was generated by a random number generator) (these lines of reason are I think those regarding things which can be known a priori).
However, there are some claims for which it is either impossible or impractical to express/verify such an argument.
For example, I could not present to you a logical argument that shows the current temperature where I am.
If I had a thermometer with me, I could tell you, or even send you a picture of the thermometer.
But I could not prove it.
If a random data stream produced such a picture, you would have no reason to believe that the picture accurately represented the current temperature of my surroundings.
For things such as this, (I think these are those things which can only be known a posteriori , and which one has not personally observed) one has to take into account the source of the claims, and so one generally has to consider how much one trusts those who are making the claim (or, how much you trust them in the given context, which a single number perhaps would not be entirely sufficient, but it seems to be at least a partial solution)