Aumann`s Agreement Theorem
Moral value is not the only type of value, and in particular, there is also the epistemic value. Different styles of epistemology put different weights on empirical evidence, contrary to theoretical arguments, authority and so on. Atheists do not believe that the Bible is proof, climate sceptics do not believe that models are evidence, etc. Aumann`s sentence is regularly criticized for oversimileing, and one of the least frequently mentioned simplifications is that both sides agree on what “information” is… in realistic situations, it is a very complex issue. 1. On issues such as politics, we do not trust our adversaries, so honesty and rationality do not hold. But even on topics such as mathematics, where honesty and rationality hold, after a news cycle a conversation of disagreement usually goes to something completely different: information transfer. it is not enough for me to know your opinion; I want to know how you got there. Along the way, I`m going to play the skeptic to force you to give me the information I want to do. Maybe I`m not as quick to sing the praises of academic disagreements as Aumannian.
If we rely objectively on objectively rational reciprocal knowledge on what is objectively verifiable, so that differences of opinion would not be possible Yes, if someone you respect as honest and rational does not agree with you, you should take it seriously as if the disagreement between the two of them were different. While conservative economists claim to like efficient markets that agree on fair prices, real companies are doing everything they can to avoid them, at least for their product. Market power is the key to profit. Making a profit from a more expensive commodity effectively requires much more work. This is why intellectual property laws aim to limit the scope of markets by creating artificial monopolies, etc. Forgive me if I look a little confrontational; It is precisely because I am fascinated by the possible applicability of this species that I ask these difficult questions. For now, I will stick to my intuitive opinion that this kind of rationality can never be obtained by people (or computers in this matter) because of serious constraints of complexity, even if I do not have a sentence that proves it (yet?).