A self-refuting idea or self-defeating idea is an idea or statement whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true. Many ideas are called self-refuting by their detractors, and such accusations are therefore almost always controversial, with defenders stating that the idea is being misunderstood or that the argument is invalid. For these reasons, none of the ideas below are unambiguously or incontrovertibly self-refuting. These ideas are often used as axioms, which are definitions taken to be true (tautological assumptions), and cannot be used to test themselves, for doing so would lead to only two consequences: consistency (circular reasoning) or exception (self-contradiction).
>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<
👉 Self-refuting idea in the context of Normative economics
In the philosophy of economics, economics is often divided into positive (or descriptive) and normative (or prescriptive) economics. Positive economics focuses on the description, quantification and explanation of economic phenomena, while normative economics discusses prescriptions for what actions individuals or societies should or should not take.
The positive-normative distinction is related to the subjective-objective and fact-value distinctions in philosophy. However, the two are not the same. Branches of normative economics such as social choice, game theory, and decision theory typically emphasize the study of prescriptive facts, such as mathematical prescriptions for what constitutes rational or irrational behavior (with irrationality identified by testing beliefs for self-contradiction). Economics also often involves the use of objective normative analyses (such as cost–benefit analyses) that try to identify the best decision to take, given a set of assumptions about value (which may be taken from policymakers or the public).
In this Dossier
Self-refuting idea in the context of Philosophical skepticism
Philosophical skepticism (UK spelling: scepticism; from Greek σκέψις skepsis, "inquiry") is a family of philosophical views that question the possibility of knowledge. It differs from other forms of skepticism in that it even rejects very plausible knowledge claims that belong to basic common sense. Philosophical skeptics are often classified into two general categories: Those who deny all possibility of knowledge, and those who advocate for the suspension of judgment due to the inadequacy of evidence. This distinction is modeled after the differences between the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonian skeptics in ancient Greek philosophy. Pyrrhonian skepticism is a practice of suspending judgement, and skepticism in this sense is understood as a way of life that helps the practitioner achieve inner peace. Some types of philosophical skepticism reject all forms of knowledge while others limit this rejection to certain fields, for example, knowledge about moral doctrines or about the external world. Some theorists criticize philosophical skepticism based on the claim that it is a self-refuting idea since its proponents seem to claim to know that there is no knowledge. Other objections focus on its implausibility and distance from regular life.