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 Counterfactual rationality requirements persist even at unreached nodes, as Stalnaker argues in 'Knowledge, Belief and Counterfactual Reasoning in Games' (1996).

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Rationality requirements should apply only to actual decisions agents face; unreached nodes impose unnecessary burdens on real cognitive capacities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Counterfactual reasoning at unreached nodes can be underdetermined by evidence, making rationality requirements there empirically unverifiable and metaphysically suspect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Subgame-perfect equilibrium can be satisfied by ignoring unreached nodes if we condition rationality on actual play paths rather than hypothetical ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Rational agents must maintain consistent beliefs about what others would do in counterfactual scenarios to avoid exploitable logical inconsistencies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Game-theoretic equilibrium requires players to have rational responses prepared at all possible nodes, whether reached or not.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Unreached nodes represent genuine possibilities that constrain present rational choice; ignoring them allows irrational behavior in conditional reasoning.
      ?

      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.