Switch to: References

Citations of:

Let's make a deal

Philosophical Papers 24 (3):209-222 (1995)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Probability, rational single-case decisions and the Monty Hall Problem.Jan Sprenger - 2010 - Synthese 174 (3):331-340.
    The application of probabilistic arguments to rational decisions in a single case is a contentious philosophical issue which arises in various contexts. Some authors (e.g. Horgan, Philos Pap 24:209–222, 1995; Levy, Synthese 158:139–151, 2007) affirm the normative force of probabilistic arguments in single cases while others (Baumann, Am Philos Q 42:71–79, 2005; Synthese 162:265–273, 2008) deny it. I demonstrate that both sides do not give convincing arguments for their case and propose a new account of the relationship between probabilistic reasoning (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Baumann on the Monty Hall Problem and Single-Case Probabilities.Ken Levy - 2007 - Synthese 158 (1):139-151.
    Peter Baumann uses the Monty Hall game to demonstrate that probabilities cannot be meaningfully applied to individual games. Baumann draws from this first conclusion a second: in a single game, it is not necessarily rational to switch from the door that I have initially chosen to the door that Monty Hall did not open. After challenging Baumann's particular arguments for these conclusions, I argue that there is a deeper problem with his position: it rests on the false assumption that what (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Reflective intuition and the Copi card problem.Terence Horgan - 2021 - Philosophical Psychology 34 (3):327-344.
    In the 1970’s, a controversy arose about a probability problem posed by Irving Copi. One side argued that a common spontaneous intuition about the problem is correct; the other side argued that this intuition is mistaken. Here, I argue (1) that the naïve intuition yields the correct answer, but accidentally and for a wrong reason; (2) that a more reflective intuition yields a wrong answer, and hence, is also mistaken; and (3) that an even more reflective intuition yields the correct (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Nonconciliation in Peer Disagreement: Its Phenomenology and Its Rationality.David Henderson, Terry Horgan, Matjaz Potrc & Hannah Tierney - 2017 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 94 (1-2):194-225.
    The authors argue in favor of the “nonconciliation” (or “steadfast”) position concerning the problem of peer disagreement. Throughout the paper they place heavy emphasis on matters of phenomenology—on how things seem epistemically with respect to the net import of one’s available evidence vis-à-vis the disputed claim p, and on how such phenomenology is affected by the awareness that an interlocutor whom one initially regards as an epistemic peer disagrees with oneself about p. Central to the argument is a nested goal/sub-goal (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Single-case probabilities and the case of Monty Hall: Levy’s view.Peter Baumann - 2008 - Synthese 162 (2):265-273.
    In Baumann (American Philosophical Quarterly 42: 71–79, 2005) I argued that reflections on a variation of the Monty Hall problem throws a very general skeptical light on the idea of single-case probabilities. Levy (Synthese, forthcoming, 2007) puts forward some interesting objections which I answer here.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Rationality, the Bayesian standpoint, and the Monty-Hall problem.Jean Baratgin - 2015 - Frontiers in Psychology 6:146013.
    The Monty-Hall Problem ($MHP$) has been used to argue against a subjectivist view of Bayesianism in two ways. First, psychologists have used it to illustrate that people do not revise their degrees of belief in line with experimenters' application of Bayes' rule. Second, philosophers view $MHP$ and its two-player extension ($MHP2$) as evidence that probabilities cannot be applied to single cases. Both arguments neglect the Bayesian standpoint, which requires that $MHP2$ (studied here) be described in different terms than usually applied (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations