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
    The claim illicitly assumes causal decision theory while ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A rational agent cannot simply choose the most obviously safe option in a pursuit scenario, because an equally rational opponent will anticipate that choice.

    The claim illicitly assumes causal decision theory while the scenario's epistemic symmetry invites evidentialist reasoning, making the conclusion theory-dependent rather than universal.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Key Terms

    Causal decision theory(Contrasted with evidential approaches that recommend one-boxing)
    A decision theory that recommends two-boxing in Newcomb's problem
    Evidentialist reasoning(as used in epistemology)
    A way of thinking that bases conclusions only on the evidence you can actually see or know, without worrying as much about what will happen as a result.
    Illicitly assumes(as the logical error being identified)
    Makes an invalid logical leap by assuming something without proper justification.
    Theory-dependent(as used in philosophy of science and logic)
    Something that only makes sense or is only true if you accept a particular theory or framework—it's not universal without that theory.
    epistemic symmetry

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    (Used to argue that we cannot know we are not victims of a skeptical scenario even when we are not)
    A relation between the actual case and a skeptical scenario such that our epistemic position with respect to the actual case is indistinguishable from our epistemic position in the skeptical scenario

    Connections

    2 topics

    Skepticism1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    A rational agent cannot simply choose the most obviously safe option in a pursui...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective