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
    The barebones theory of rationality (completeness + trans... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The barebones theory of rationality (completeness + transitivity + best-choice selection) is too weak as a theory of rationality.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Transitivity violations under cyclic preferences (Sen's 'menu-dependence') are rational responses to social context, not failures to be ruled out.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A theory permitting all transitive, complete preference orderings cannot distinguish rational agents from agents with patently absurd but consistent rankings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rationality requires more than formal coherence; it demands substantive constraints on what ends agents may pursue, as Kant's categorical imperative demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Expected utility theory (von Neumann-Morgenstern) shows that rationality under uncertainty requires additional axioms like independence, which barebones theory omits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Allais's paradox empirically demonstrates that agents violate independence while satisfying completeness and transitivity, revealing a normative gap the barebones theory cannot address.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The barebones theory says nothing about belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The barebones theory says nothing about what rationality requires when agents face uncertainty.
      ?

      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

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A theory permitting all transitive, complete preference orderings cannot disting...Allais's paradox empirically demonstrates that agents violate independence while...Expected utility theory (von Neumann-Morgenstern) shows that rationality under u...Rationality requires more than formal coherence; it demands substantive constrai...
    +3 moreShow less
    The barebones theory says nothing about belief.The barebones theory says nothing about what rationality requires when agents fa...Transitivity violations under cyclic preferences (Sen's 'menu-dependence') are r...

    Similar

    The barebones theory of rationality (requiring complete preferences) m...90%Strong rationality is a more demanding condition than weak rationality...84%Strong rationality implies weak rationality, but there can be moves th...83%Global rationality is a reasonable normative standard but problematic ...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: economics
    View source passageHide passage
    The barebones theory of rationality discussed above in Section 1.1 takes an agent’s preferences (rankings of states of affairs) to be rational if they are complete and transitive, and it takes the agent’s choice to be rational if the agent does not prefer any feasible alternative to the one he or she chooses. Such a theory of rationality is clearly too weak, because it says nothing about belief or what rationality implies when agents do not know (with certainty) everything relevant to their
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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