Not in this one, sadly. I have a few others that fill out the details of this project that I liked a bit better in terms of style, etc.

Anyway, have a read. Hope to have more on this forthcoming. The overlap with O'Connor's work on industrial distraction is quite promising. And just excited to have a paper on the value of information (VOI) in this space. As an epistemologist, I'm here to say listen to the decision people, not us

So, swapping the evidence the other way so that they get knowledge providing testimony that doesn't warrant as high confidence as the statistical evidence would be less valuable for their choices.

Thus, it might be accuracy-enhancing disinformation because it ensures that the content (while more accurate) can't play its desired practical function (e.g., giving proof of guilt in a criminal case). However, an agent who is betting would prefer statistics

Here's a silly example. Let E1 be naked statistical evidence that p. Let E2 be testimonial evidence that p. If evidence is needed to build a case, swapping E2 for E1 would improve accuracy (both over the prior and the alternative evidence) but thwart the effort to build a case.

we can also see how we can disinform while uncertain about the true state of the world, disinform using incredible content, disinform by improving credal accuracy, and the same content's status as disinformation or not might vary depending upon practical ends.

This can be done by supplying the audience with content that makes their attitudes more accurate. It can also be done by supplying the audience with content that bestows them knowledge. On the pragmatic account (content that functions to degrade the value of information for the audience's choices)

So yes, of course, disinformants can deceive and try to induce false belief, but they can also achieve their strategic ends by other means and so the consensus that it should be understood epistemically is wrong. It's about changing the value of information to influence choice.

Could work. But it's been conditionally accepted (I think)

Admittedly, corrupted by Gabriel Garcia Marquez's _The Story of a Shipwrecked Sailor: Who Drifted on a Liferaft for Ten Days Without Food or Water, Was Proclaimed a National Hero, Kissed by Beauty Queens, Made Rich Through Publicity, and Then Spurned by the Government and Forgotten for All Time_

But, but ...

academic.oup.com/pq/article-a...

the 's was provocative. Consider it dropped.

I want to argue that disinformation leaves us worse off by reducing the value of information for choice (which isn't quite the same as confirming falsehoods). Which should I go with? I don't know if "pragmatic degradation" is great, but (3) is shorter than (4) and (5). But (4/5) use a known term

(5) Disinformation is about the Degradation of the Value of Information, not Disconfirmation

A steal at any price