Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T22:25:27.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Best Accuracy Arguments for Probabilism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2022

Michael Nielsen Open the ORCID record for Michael Nielsen [Opens in a new window]
Michael Nielsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
*
Email: michael.nielsen@sydney.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a recent paper, Pettigrew (2022) reports a generalization of the celebrated accuracy-dominance theorem due to Predd et al. (2009), but Pettigrew’s proof is incorrect. I will explain the mistakes and provide a correct proof.

Type
Discussion Note
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 89 , Issue 3 , July 2022 , pp. 621 - 630
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aliprantis, Charalambos D., and Border, Kim C.. 2006. Infinite Dimensional Analysis: A Hitchhiker’s Guide. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
de Finetti, Bruno. 1974. Theory of Probability. A Critical Introductory Treatment . Vol. 1. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. London-New York-Sydney: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, Richard. 2016. Accuracy and the Laws of Credence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, Richard. 2022. “Accuracy-first Epistemology Without the Additivity Axiom.” Philosophy of Science 89 (1):128–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Predd, Joel B., Seiringer, Robert, Lieb, Elliott H., Osherson, Daniel N., Vincent Poor, H., and Kulkarni, Sanjeev R.. 2009. “Probabilistic Coherence and Proper Scoring Rules.” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 55 (10):4786–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar