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 use of heuristics—even potentially unsound ones—should be regarded as falling under a generalized account of rationality

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rationality requires not merely some valid inferences but inferences governed by norms that are reliably truth-conducive across contexts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Unsound heuristics, by definition, can yield systematically false conclusions, violating the truth-conduciveness criterion Alvin Goldman's reliabilism demands.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A generalized account of rationality that permits systematically unreliable processes conflates pragmatic usefulness with epistemic justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kant's account of rationality requires that the maxims governing reasoning be universalizable, not merely locally expedient for a given agent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Heuristics that are potentially unsound cannot be universalized without generating contradictions in the very epistemic norms they presuppose.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Computational tractability constrains implementation but cannot revise the normative standards by which reasoning is evaluated as rational or irrational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Heuristics may be of benefit to an agent in certain circumstances
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A generalized account of rationality must be informed by computational complexity theory
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Minimal rationality only requires that an agent make some valid inferences, not all
      ?

      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.