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 Game theorists should not generalize about epistemic priorities meant to apply to any rational agent in all situations.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bayesian rationality provides a domain-general framework for belief revision that applies to any agent with coherent credences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Savage's sure-thing principle and Jeffrey conditionalization yield universal norms for updating on unexpected evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If epistemic priorities can be formalized as priors, then rational agents share structural updating rules regardless of situational context.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aumann's common prior assumption demonstrates that rational agents with shared information must converge on identical posteriors.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If epistemic divergence in games stems from differing priors rather than differing rationality norms, the solution is shared priors, not pluralism about epistemic priorities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.When players face surprising behavior in a game, their strategies depend on how their beliefs would be revised.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Belief revision depends on epistemic priorities—whether an unexpected action is an isolated mistake or reveals something about future behavior.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.These epistemic priorities vary by situation and cannot be uniformly prescribed.
      ?

      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.