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
    Iterated announcements can be self-refuting rather than s... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Iterated announcements can be self-refuting rather than self-fulfilling.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.In the Muddy Children puzzle, repeatedly communicating ignorance leads to knowledge in the end.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A process that produces its own negation (knowledge from ignorance announcements) is self-refuting.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Muddy Children puzzle does not refute the claim: each ignorance announcement is eliminated, not preserved, so no single announcement self-refutes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Self-refutation requires a statement to undermine its own truth-conditions, but in iterated announcement logic each round's announcement is evaluated at a distinct epistemic state.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Grice's cooperative maxims and Stalnaker's context-change semantics both treat successive utterances as updating distinct contexts, not as a single self-undermining act.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moore's paradox shows that some assertions create performative contradictions only for the utterer, not for observers—Austin's speech act theory distinguishes illocutionary force from propositional content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Iterated public announcements are self-fulfilling in Merton's sociological sense: repeated declarations of ignorance collectively produce the very knowledge state they deny, confirming rather than refuting the announcement's social function.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    A process that produces its own negation (knowledge from ignorance announcements...Grice's cooperative maxims and Stalnaker's context-change semantics both treat s...In the Muddy Children puzzle, repeatedly communicating ignorance leads to knowle...Iterated public announcements are self-fulfilling in Merton's sociological sense...
    +3 moreShow less
    Moore's paradox shows that some assertions create performative contradictions on...Self-refutation requires a statement to undermine its own truth-conditions, but ...The Muddy Children puzzle does not refute the claim: each ignorance announcement...

    Similar

    Limit models of public announcement can be self-fulfilling, self-refut...86%A process that produces its own negation (knowledge from ignorance ann...81%Forms either allow self-predication or they do not.77%Descartes' formulation of the dreaming argument is not self-refuting.75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logics-for-games
    View source passageHide passage
    Limit behavior Rationality is ‘self-fulfilling’ in the limit: if players commit to it in deliberation for long enough, they prune away all irrational moves and, a fortiori, all moves incompatible with common belief of rationality. The final outcome is a model with rational play at every point, a form of common knowledge of rationality. However, iterated announcements can also yield a different type of limit behavior: self-refutation. A prime example for this is the classic Muddy Children puzzle
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit