Therefore the claim conflates common knowledge of rationality with common knowledge of rationality plus common priors, making the impossibility result an artifact of an overly enriched epistemic model.

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

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1.Common priors are a substantial additional assumption not entailed by rationality alone, so conflating them distorts the minimal requirements.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Models without common priors still permit rational disagreement, suggesting impossibility results depend on this enrichment, not rationality per se.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Distinguishing assumptions clarifies which epistemic constraints actually drive impossibility versus which are artifacts of model construction.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

1.Common knowledge of rationality arguably presupposes convergent belief-formation processes, which functionally require common priors or equivalents.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Removing common priors may eliminate impossibility but renders the model unable to explain actual persistent disagreement among rational agents.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.The distinction between 'rationality' and 'rationality plus priors' may be terminologically arbitrary if rationality is defined operationally in practice.
?
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.

Key Terms

Common priors(the key assumption in Aumann's theorem): A shared starting point or basic belief system that two people both accept before they exchange any new information.
Conflate(the criticism being made in the statement): To mistakenly treat two different things as if they were the same thing.
Enriched (in epistemic context)(logic and epistemology): Made more complex or detailed by adding extra assumptions or information beyond what's strictly necessary.
Impossibility result(logic and mathematics): A logical proof that demonstrates something cannot be done or cannot be true under certain conditions.
artifact(Contrasted with real cellular structures in evaluating microscopy results): A feature in a micrograph produced by the methods of preparation rather than by actual structures in the cell
common knowledge(Condition for the formation of a joint commitment): A state in which each party knows the relevant fact, knows that the others know it, and so on — used here as the threshold condition for a joint commitment coming into force.
epistemic model(Epistemic game theory): A formal structure assigning strategy profiles to possible worlds/states, here containing a single state w
knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.): Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.
rationality(Traditional conception being challenged by epistemic relativists): A cognitive virtue and hallmark of the scientific method, intimately tied to requirements of consistency, justification, warrant, and evidence for beliefs.

Connections

2 topics

Truth & Knowledge1 linked Skepticism1 linked

Common knowledge of rationality arguably presupposes convergent belief-formation...Common priors are a substantial additional assumption not entailed by rationalit...

Details

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