As has been [38] pointed out, in the context of economic decisions in a market-place, it will not always be possible to make even an approximate quantitative estimate of the expected merits of different courses of action, under an ideology, leading to the necessity for a natural-language description of the features of decisions that are good, under that ideology, to allow qualitative arguments to be put forward. It is plausible that this also applies to experiment selection. Therefore, it may be useful to put forward qualitative conditions for an experiment to lower an uncertainty function (section 3.2) significantly.
In a recent application to attend a summer school in geo-physical and environmental fluid dynamics, the author suggested that a situation where policy-makers have apparently similar values, but are unable to agree on the policy to adopt, may indicate that the source of the divergence of policy is disagreement about the consequences of any particular policy, and that experiments that distinguish between theories about the consequences of each of the policies proposed in the debate have a high information. He held up the process that began with the Kyoto protocol, and ended in failure to reach a treaty acceptable to all parties, although a wide variety of governments shared qualitative features of a value system, in which possible consequences of failing to reduce carbon emissions, such as coastal flooding, and increased frequency of extreme, local weather events, are seen as nefarious, but must be weighed against the moral good of economic growth, which efforts to reduce carbon emissions may jeopardize, as an example of such a situation.