References
Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: cri- tique des postulats et axiomes de l’ecole Americaine. Econometrica, 21(4), 503–46.
Armendt, B. (1993). Dutch Books, Additivity, and Utility Theory. Philosoph- ical Topics, 21 (1).
Arntzenius, F. (2002). Reflections on Sleeping Beauty. Analysis, 62(2), 53–62.
Arntzenius, F. (2003). Some Problems for Conditionalization and Reflection. Journal of Philosophy, 100(356–70).
Arntzenius, F., Elga, A., & Hawthorne, J. (2004). Bayesianism, Infinite Deci- sions, and Binding. Mind, 113, 251–83.
Berger, J. O. (1985). Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis. New York: Springer.
Bernoulli, D. (1738 [1954]). Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk. Econometrica, 22(1), 23–36.
Boyd, S., & Vandenberghe, L. (2004). Convex Optimization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bradley, S. (2016). Imprecise Probabilities. In Zalta, E. N(Ed.), StanfordEncy- clopedia ofPhilosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Bradley, S. (2017). Nonclassical Probability and Convex Hulls. Erkenntnis, 82(1), 87–101.
Bradley, S., & Steele, K. (2014). Should Subjective Probabilities Be Sharp? Episteme, 11(3), 277–89.
Briggs, R. A. (2009). Distorted Reflection. Philosophical Review, 118(1), 59–85.
Briggs, R. A. (2010). Putting a Value on Beauty. In Gendler, T. S. & Hawthorne, J (Eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, vol. 3 (pp. 3–34). Oxford University Press.
Briggs, R. A., & Pettigrew, R. (2018). An Accuracy-Dominance Argument for Conditionalization. Nous.
Buchak, L. (2013). Risk and Rationality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Christensen, D. (1991). Clever Bookies and Coherent Beliefs. Philosophical Review, 100(2), 229–47.
Christensen, D. (1996). Dutch-Book Arguments Depragmatized: Epistemic Consistency for Partial Believers. The Journal of Philosophy, 93(9), 450–79.
Davidson, D., McKinsey, J. C. C., & Suppes, P. (1955). Outlines of a Formal Theory of Value, I. Philosophy of Science, 22(2), 140–60.
de Finetti, B. (1937 [1980]). Foresight: Its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources. In Kyburg, H. E. & Smokler, H. E. K. (Eds.), Studies in Subjective Probability. Huntington, NY: Robert E. Kreiger Publishing Co.
de Finetti, B. (1972). Probability, Induction, and Statistics. London: John Wiley & Sons.
de Finetti, B. (1974). Theory of Probability, vol. I. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dempster, A. P. (1968). A Generalization of Bayesian Inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological), 30, 205–47.
Easwaran, K. (2016). Dr Truthlove, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Bayesian Probabilities. Nous, 50(4), 816–53.
Easwaran, K., & Fitelson, B. (2015). Accuracy, Coherence, and Evidence. In Gendler, T. S. & Hawthorne, J (Eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, vol. 5, (pp. 61–96). Oxford University Press.
Elga, A. (2000). Self-Locating Belief and the Sleeping Beauty Problem. Analysis, 60(2), 143–7.
Elga, A. (2010). Subjective Probabilities Should Be Sharp. Philosophers’ Imprint, 10(5), 1–11.
Fishburn, P. C. (1986). The Axioms of Subjective Probability. Statistical Science, 1(3), 335–58.
Gerla, B. (2000). MV-Algebras, Multiple Bets and Subjective States. Interna- tional Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 25, 1–13.
Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1989). Maxmin Expected Utility with Non- Unique Prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18, 141–53.
Hajek, A. (2008). Dutch Book Arguments. In Anand, P, Pattanaik, P, & Puppe, C (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Rational and Social Choice (pp. 173–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hedden, B. (2013). Incoherence without Exploitability. Nous, 47(3), 482–495.
Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (1989). Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
Jaffray, J.-Y. (1989). Coherent Bets under Partially Resolving Uncertainty and Belief Functions. Theory and Decision, 26, 99–105.
Jeffrey, R. C. (1983). The Logic of Decision. 2nd ed. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Joyce, J. M. (1999). The Foundations of Causal Decision Theory. Cam- bridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Joyce, J. M. (2010). A Defense of Imprecise Credences in Inference and Decision Making. Philosophical Perspectives, 24, 281–322.
Levi, I. (1974). On Indeterminate Probabilities. Journal of Philosophy, 71, 391–418.
Levinstein, B. A. (2017). A Pragmatist’s Guide to Epistemic Utility. Philosophy of Science, 84(4), 613–38.
Lewis, D. (1980). A Subjectivist’s Guide to Objective Chance. In Jeffrey, R. C. (Ed.), Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, vol. II. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lewis, D. (1981). Causal Decision Theory. Australasian JournalofPhilosophy, 59, 5–30.
Lewis, D. (1999). Why Conditionalize? In Papers in Metaphysics andEpiste- mology (pp. 403–7). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, D. (2001). Sleeping Beauty: Reply to Elga. Analysis, 61(3), 171–6.
MacFarlane, J., & Kolodny, N. (2010). Ifs and Oughts. Journal of Philosophy, 107, 115–43.
Mahtani, A. (2012). Diachronic Dutch Book Arguments. Philosophical Review, 121(3), 443–50.
Mahtani, A. (2015). Dutch Books, Coherence, and Logical Consistency. Nous, 49(3), 522–37.
McGee, V (1999). An Airtight Dutch Book. Analysis, 59(4), 257–65.
Moss, S. (2015). Credal Dilemmas. Nous, 49(4), 665–83.
Moss, S. (2018). Probabilistic Knowledge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Parfit, D. (ms). What We Together Do.
Paris, J. B. (2001). A Note on the Dutch Book Method. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and Their Applications, ISIPTA, Ithaca, NY (pp. 301–6).Oxford, UK: Shaker.
Pettigrew, R. (2012). Accuracy, Chance, and the Principal Principle. Philo- sophical Review, 121(2), 241–75.
Pettigrew, R. (2013). A New Epistemic Utility Argument for the Principal Principle. Episteme, 10(1), 19–35.
Pettigrew, R. (2019a). On the Expected Utility Objection to the Dutch Book Argument for Probabilism. Nous (DOI:10.1111/nous.12286).
Pettigrew, R. (2019b). Is Conditionalization, and Why Should We Do It? Philosophical Studies (DOI:10.1007/s11098-019-01377-y).
Piccione, M. & Rubinstein, A. (1997). On the Interpretation of Decision Problems with Imperfect Recall. Games and Economical Behavior, 20, 3–24.
Predd, J., Seiringer, R., Lieb, E. H., Osherson, D., Poor, V., & Kulkarni, S. (2009). Probabilistic Coherence and Proper Scoring Rules. IEEE Transac- tions of Information Theory, 55(10), 4786–92.
Ramsey, F. P. (1926 [1931]). Truth and Probability. In Braithwaite, R. B (Ed.), The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays, chap. VII (pp. 156–98). London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
Rinard, S. (2015). A Decision Theory for Imprecise Probabilities. Philoso- phers’ Imprint, 15(7), 1–16.
Rothschild, D. (2019). Lockean Beliefs, Dutch Books, and Scoring Systems. Review of Symbolic Logic.
Sahlin, N.-E., & Weirich, P. (2013). Unsharp Sharpness. Theoria, 80(1), 100–3.
Savage, L. J. (1971). Elicitation of Personal Probabilities and Expectations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66(336), 783–801.
Schervish, M. J. (1989). A General Method for Comparing Probability Asses- sors. The Annals of Statistics, 17, 1856–79.
Schick, F. (1986). Dutch Bookies and Money Pumps. The Journal of Philoso- phy, 83(2), 112–19.
Seidenfeld, T. (2004). A Contrast between Two Decision Rules for Use with (Convex) Sets of Probabilities: Gamma-Maximin versus E-Admissibility. Synthese, 140, 69–88.
Seidenfeld, T., Schervish, M. J., & Kadane, J. B. (1995). A Representation of Partially Ordered Preferences. Annals of Statistics, 23, 2168–217.
Shafer, G. (1976). A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Skyrms, B. (1987). Coherence. In Rescher, N (Ed.), Scientific Inquiry in Philosophical Perspective (pp. 225–42). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Skyrms, B. (1993). A Mistake in Dynamic Coherence Arguments? Philosophy ofScience, 60(2), 320–8.
Talbott, W. J. (1991). Two Principles of Bayesian Epistemology. Philosophical Studies, 62(2), 135–50.
van Fraassen, B. C. (1984). Belief and the Will. Journal of Philosophy, 81, 235–56.
van Fraassen, B. C. (1990). Figures in a Probability Landscape. In Dunn, J. M. & Gupta, A (Eds.), Truth or Consequences (pp. 345–56). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Vineberg, S. (2001). The Notion of Consistency for Partial Belief. Philosophi- cal Studies, 102, 281–96.
Vineberg, S. (2016). Dutch Book Arguments. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), Stan- ford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
Walley, P. (1991). StatisticalReasoningwith Imprecise Probabilities, vol. 42 of Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability. London: Chapman and Hall.
Williams, J. R. G. (2012a). Generalized Probabilism: Dutch Books and Accu- racy Domination. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 41(5), 811–40.
Williams, J. R. G. (2012b). Gradational Accuracy and Non-classical Semantics. Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(4), 513–37.
Williams, J. R. G. (2014). Decision-Making under Indeterminacy. Philoso- phers’ Imprint, 14(4), 1–34.
Williamson, J. (1999). Countable Additivity and Subjective Probability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 50, 401–16.
Wronski, L., & Godziszewski, M. T. (2017). The Stubborn Non- probabilist—‘Negation Incoherence’ and a New Way to Block the Dutch Book Argument. In LORI 2017: Logic, Rationality, and Interaction, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.
