Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Holding contradictory judgments simultaneously violates basic norms of rational agency in ways that make the posited mechanism explanatorily incoherent.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Humans routinely hold contradictory implicit and explicit beliefs without losing rational agency status.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Compartmentalization and context-sensitivity can preserve agency coherence despite surface contradictions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Rationality norms may be aspirational ideals rather than necessary conditions for being an agent at all.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Rational agency requires coherence: agents must have stable dispositions to act on their commitments.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Contradictory judgments undermine explanatory power because they give no determinate prediction of behavior.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Norms of rationality are constitutive of agency itself, not merely regulative constraints on it.
?
How convincing is this?
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.