Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The use of potentially unsound heuristics should be regarded as falling within 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 norms are prescriptive ideals, not descriptive summaries of what agents find computationally convenient.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Kant's distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives entails that pragmatic efficiency cannot ground normative rational status.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Classifying heuristics as 'rational' because they are useful conflates instrumental success with epistemic justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Tversky and Kahneman's own research demonstrates that availability and representativeness heuristics produce systematic, predictable errors.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A generalized rationality account that licenses inference strategies producing systematic errors is self-undermining, as Goldman argues in 'Epistemics'.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Computational tractability constraints explain why agents use heuristics but do not normatively justify treating their outputs as rational beliefs.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Heuristics of the kind studied by cognitive psychologists such as Tversky and Kahneman may benefit an agent in certain circumstances.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A rationality account informed by computational complexity theory permits inference strategies that are not deductively complete.
?
How convincing is this?
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.