The Axiomatic Foundations of Bayesian Decision Theory

Dissertation, University of Michigan (1992)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Bayesian decision theorists argue that rational agents should always perform acts that maximize subjective expected utility. To justify this claim, they prove representation theorems which are designed to show that any decision maker whose beliefs and desires satisfy reasonable axiomatic constraints will necessarily behave like an expected utility maximizer. The existence of such a representation result is a prerequisite for any adequate account of rational choice because one is only able to determine what a decision theory says about beliefs and desires by looking at the axioms used in the proof of its representation result. ;I examine a number of versions of decision theory and their representation theorems. Particular attention is paid to so-called causal and evidential decision theories. It is argued that only the latter has an adequate representation which is found in a theorem due to Ethan Bolker which was adapted to the decision theoretic context by R. Jeffrey. I remove the single outstanding problem with Bolker's theorem by reformulating it in a way which yields a unique probability and utility representation. This is possible because, unlike Bolker, I make use of axioms which govern not only preference but comparative probability. ;I show how this reformulated version of Bolker's result can be further generalized to a representation theorem for a generic theory of conditional expected utility whose basic term is a function which measures the strength of an agent's desires when he supposes that various hypotheses are true. Evidential and causal decision theories are show to be special cases of this generic theory. They differ only in the interpretation they give to the notion of supposition. The evidential account interprets it indicatively, while the causal account views it subjunctively. ;Finally, I show how my generic representation theorem for conditional decision theory can serve as a foundation for both causal and evidential decision theories. This provides the first fully adequate representation result for causal decision theory, thereby removing its most serious defect.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

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

Why we still need the logic of decision.James M. Joyce - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (3):13.
Rationality revisited.Reed Richter - 1984 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62 (4):392 – 403.
A unified Bayesian decision theory.Richard Bradley - 2007 - Theory and Decision 63 (3):233-263,.
Conditional Desirability.Richard Bradley - 1999 - Theory and Decision 47 (1):23-55.
Risk and Tradeoffs.Lara Buchak - 2014 - Erkenntnis 79 (S6):1091-1117.
Decision Theory.Lara Buchak - 2016 - In Alan Hájek & Christopher Hitchcock (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
An introduction to decision theory.Martin Peterson - 2009 - Cambridge University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-06

Downloads
4 (#1,599,757)

6 months
4 (#800,606)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

James M. Joyce
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references