Talk:Self-refuting idea/Archives/2017

Add other examples
I would suggest adding the examples of Agnosticism, Constructivism, Constructionism, Deconstruction and Naturalistic fallacy. It is also worth to have a look on the and check the List of fallacies and the List of cognitive biases. What do you guys think?

Seems to be mostly arguing against its topic
Instead of explaining why each example is a self-refuting idea or how it is, the bulk of the text seems to be defensive apologetics for why the example isnt a self-refuting idea. This seems improper somehow; if there are to be "refutations" or disputations then they should be in their own section, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.48.154 (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Prisoner’s Dilemma and why I removed the sentence
So, I think this requires more clarification, and I don’t want others to think that I did not attempt to consider how to save the sentence. The central problem is that the Prisoner’s Dilemma is arguably/easily the most well known non-zero-sum game. A zero-sum game being one in which in all outcomes the sum of collective rewards/punishments resolves to zero. The central principle of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is that there are at least two states where in one has a collectively better outcome than the other. (i.e. the sum of all rewards/punishments in one outcome must be greater than the sum of all rewards/punishments in another outcome.) Without this, the whole conceit of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is impossible. (i.e. review the game-state table at the [Prisoner's Dilemma] article, the sum of states from upper-left, left-to-right, top-to-bottom are: -2, -3, -3, -4. These sums not being zero, it is not a zero-sum game.

The problem with the sentence being an assertion that normal everyday human situations are not zero-sum games, therefore Prisoner’s Dilemma does not apply… but as noted, the Dilemma is not a zero-sum game. As such the central conceit of the sentence itself is lost.

I would like to see, and invite someone who understands what was originally intended to rework the sentence to explain better why and how the Dilemma does not apply to most of real-life without saying essentially, “life is not a zero-sum game”, while still in a way that supports the thesis of the section itself. (Simply saying that the Dilemma does not apply to real-life really doesn’t advance any argument. It is rather affirming the consequent of the section.) --Puellanivis (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)