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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

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

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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