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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.