In Defence of the Dutch Book Argument

Canadian Journal of Philosophy 15 (3):405 - 423 (1985)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A starting point for this paper is that there is at least one concept of probability, call it epistemic probability, which can be identified with belief or some sort of idealised belief. If this identification is to be of any significance, then it needs to be shown that epistemic probability is a ‘true’ probability concept and is subject to those restrictions and requirements which relate and govern probabilities, which we call the probability calculus.The most rehearsed argument to establish the probability calculus for epistemic probabilities is the Dutch Book Argument. There are two intuitions behind the DBA. The first is that if we can find some fine-grained behavioural measure of epistemic probability, then we may be able to show that epistemic probabilities obey the probability calculus by showing that the behaviour is of a kind which is, as a matter of necessity, subject to certain limitations and restrictions.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Hidden Assumptions in the Dutch Book Argument.C. Waidacher - 1997 - Theory and Decision 43 (3):293-312.
Is there a dutch book argument for probability kinematics?Brad Armendt - 1980 - Philosophy of Science 47 (4):583-588.
Dutch Book Arguments and Consistency.Colin Howson - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:161 - 168.
A modified dutch book argument.Frank Jackson & Robert Pargetter - 1976 - Philosophical Studies 29 (6):403 - 407.
Begging the Question and Bayesians.Brian Weatherson - 1999 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 30:687-697.
Dutch Books, Additivity, and Utility Theory.Brad Armendt - 1993 - Philosophical Topics 21 (1):1-20.
Beauty and the bets.Christopher Hitchcock - 2004 - Synthese 139 (3):405 - 420.
Scotching the dutch book argument.Peter Milne - 1990 - Erkenntnis 32 (1):105--26.
Depragmatized dutch book arguments.Patrick Maher - 1997 - Philosophy of Science 64 (2):291-305.
A mistake in dynamic coherence arguments?Brian Skyrms - 1993 - Philosophy of Science 60 (2):320-328.
Implications of the Dutch Book: Following Ramsey’s axioms.Wei Xiong - 2011 - Frontiers of Philosophy in China 6 (2):334-344.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-05-29

Downloads
66 (#240,625)

6 months
6 (#522,885)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Resurrecting logical probability.James Franklin - 2001 - Erkenntnis 55 (2):277-305.
Counterfactuals and Epistemic Probability.R. Otte - 2006 - Synthese 152 (1):81-93.
On Uncertainty.Brian Weatherson - 1998 - Dissertation, Monash University

Add more citations

References found in this work

A modified dutch book argument.Frank Jackson & Robert Pargetter - 1976 - Philosophical Studies 29 (6):403 - 407.
Confirmation and the dutch book argument.Patricia Baillie - 1973 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24 (4):393-397.
The logic of subjective probability.Brian Ellis - 1973 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24 (2):125-152.

Add more references