Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T23:00:27.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conditional Probability and Dutch Books

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Frank Döring
Frank Döring*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of Cincinnati
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0374, doringf@email.uc.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is no set Δ of probability axioms that meets the following three desiderata:

  • (1) Δ is vindicated by a Dutch book theorem;

  • (2) Δ does not imply regularity (and thus allows, among other things, updating by conditionalization);

  • (3) Δ constrains the conditional probability q(·, z) even when the unconditional probability p(z) (= q(z, T)) equals 0.

  • This has significant consequences for Bayesian epistemology, some of which are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 67 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 391 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by 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.)

Footnotes

‡

For their criticism and encouragement, as well as for their patience with half-baked ideas, I wish to thank Richard Bradley, Chris Gauker, Dick Jeffrey, Jim Joyce, Isaac Levi, John Martin, Rob Rynasiewicz, and two anonymous referees.

References

de Finetti, Bruno (1964 [1937]), “Foresight: Its Logical Laws, its Subjective Sources”, in Kyburg, Henry E. and Smokier, Howard E. (eds.), Studies in Subjective Probability. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hàjek, Alan (forthcoming), “What Conditional Probabilities Could Not Be”, Synthese.Google Scholar
Howson, Colin and Urbach, Peter (1989), Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, Richard C. (1983), The Logic of Decision, 2nd edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, James (1999), The Foundations of Causal Decision Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511498497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemeny, John G. (1955), “Fair Bets and Inductive Probabilities”, The Journal of Formal Logic 20(3): 263–273.Google Scholar
Kyburg, Henry E. and Smokier, Howard E. (ed.) (1964), Studies in Subjective Probability. New York: Wiley. Revised edition (1980), Huntington, NY: Krieger.Google Scholar
Lehman, Sherman R. (1955), “On Confirmation and Rational Betting”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 20(3): 251–262.10.2307/2268221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Isaac (1978), “Coherence, Regularity and Conditional Probability”, Theory and Decision 9: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Isaac. (1989), “Possibility and Probability”, Erkenntnis 31: 365–386.10.1007/BF01236570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGee, Vann (1994), “Learning the Impossible”, in Eells, Ellery and Skyrms, Brian (eds.), Probability and Conditionals. Belief Revision and Rational Decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 179–199.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl and Miller, David (1994), “Contributions to the Formal Theory of Probability”, in Humphreys, Paul (ed.), Patrick Suppes: Scientific Philosopher, Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 3–23.10.1007/978-94-011-0774-7_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, Frank P. (1988 [1926]), “Truth and Probability”, in Gärdenfors, Peter and Sahlin, Nils-Eric (eds.), Decision, Probability, and Utility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19–47.10.1017/CBO9780511609220.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimony, Abner (1955), “Coherence and the Axioms of Confirmation”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 20(3): 1–28.10.2307/2268039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, Brian (1984), Pragmatics and Empiricism. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar