Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A minimally rational agent need only make some of the val... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A minimally rational agent need only make some of the valid inferences that follow from the agent's beliefs, not all of them.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Full deductive closure is computationally infeasible for resource-limited agents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Human agents face real resource limitations in everyday decision making.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory of rationality must be responsive to complexity-theoretic results about the difficulty of deductive inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Requiring all valid inferences to be drawn is computationally intractable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A rationality standard must be responsive to complexity-theoretic results about the difficulty of deductive inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rationality norms are normative ideals, not descriptive facts about cognitive capacity, per Kant's distinction between 'ought' and 'can'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The computational intractability of full deductive closure shows we often fail to be rational, not that rationality requires less of us.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Revising the standard of rationality downward to match cognitive limitations conflates the measure with the measurer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Harman's 'change in view' tradition distinguishes belief revision from inference-drawing, undermining the assumption that rationality demands active derivation of all consequences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If minimal rationality permits arbitrary selection among valid inferences, agents could systematically ignore inconvenient entailments and still count as rational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A rationality standard must be responsive to complexity-theoretic results about ...A theory of rationality must be responsive to complexity-theoretic results about...Full deductive closure is computationally infeasible for resource-limited agents...Harman's 'change in view' tradition distinguishes belief revision from inference...
    +6 moreShow less
    Human agents face real resource limitations in everyday decision making.If minimal rationality permits arbitrary selection among valid inferences, agent...Rationality norms are normative ideals, not descriptive facts about cognitive ca...Requiring all valid inferences to be drawn is computationally intractable.Revising the standard of rationality downward to match cognitive limitations con...The computational intractability of full deductive closure shows we often fail t...

    Similar

    Minimal rationality only requires that an agent make some valid infere...90%Economically rational agents account for uncertainty when they have no...80%An agent can act according to his epistemic perspective guided by a fa...80%The barebones theory says nothing about what rationality requires when...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: computational-complexity
    View source passageHide passage
    \(\neg K_i \phi \rightarrow K_i \neg K_i \phi\), which expresses that \(i\)’s failure to know \(\phi\) entails that he knows of this failure – are considered more controversial. , Hintikka 1962; Lenzen 1978; Fagin et al. 1995) is that the most defensible choices of logics of knowledge lie between the modal systems \(\textsf{S4}\) and \(\textsf{S5}\). [56] Note, however, that both of these results seem prima facie implausible relative to our everyday understanding of knowledge. For on the one han
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    4 (2 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit