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 The fugitive should weight his randomizing formula according to the different levels of parametric danger at each bridge

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Under genuine strategic uncertainty, the pursuer's choice distribution is unknown to the fugitive, making expected utility calculations indeterminate rather than probabilistically tractable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Savage's framework for expected utility requires known or estimable probabilities, but in novel one-shot interactions no frequentist or subjective basis for the pursuer's bridge preference exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a probability distribution over the pursuer's choices, weighting by 'parametric danger' collapses into arbitrary stipulation rather than rational decision procedure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Maximin reasoning, as defended by Rawls and rooted in Wald's statistical decision theory, recommends choosing the bridge maximizing the worst-case survival probability, not the expected-value-maximizing mixed strategy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When outcomes are binary and catastrophic, the irreversibility of death gives lexical priority to worst-case avoidance over expected-utility maximization, per Hansson's work on risk ethics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the fugitive should deterministically choose the safest bridge rather than randomize according to a formula that treats death as commensurable with escape under a weighted average.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Each bridge represents a lottery over the fugitive's possible outcomes with a different expected payoff
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The fugitive cares only about living or dying, preferring life to death
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The pursuer cares only about being able to report the fugitive dead versus escaped
      ?

      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.