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
    An assumption that undermines itself when applied is self... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The common knowledge of rationality assumption used in backward induction arguments is potentially self-defeating.

    An assumption that undermines itself when applied is self-defeating.

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

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Free Will & Foreknowledge1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    If the game reaches node v2, player B must conclude that common knowledge of rat...The common knowledge of rationality assumption used in backward induction argume...Under common knowledge of rationality, player B would choose O2 at node v2.

    Similar

    This assumption can be challenged.77%A view that prescribes its own rejection when applied consistently is ...77%This assumption is not obviously correct and is open to challenge75%An unproductive or misleading programmatic analogy can become entrench...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: epistemic-game
    View source passageHide passage
    This result has been extensively discussed. The standard ground of contention is that common knowledge of rationality used in this argument seems self-defeating, at least intuitively. Recall that we asked what would \(B\) do at node \(v_2\) under common knowledge of rationality, and we concluded that he would choose \(O_2\). But, if the game ever reaches that state, then, by the theorem above, \(B\) has to conclude that either \(A\) is not rational, or that she does not know that he is. Both vio

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective