Arntzenius on ‘Why ain’cha rich?’

Erkenntnis 77 (1):15-30 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The best-known argument for Evidential Decision Theory (EDT) is the ‘Why ain’cha rich?’ challenge to rival Causal Decision Theory (CDT). The basis for this challenge is that in Newcomb-like situations, acts that conform to EDT may be known in advance to have the better return than acts that conform to CDT. Frank Arntzenius has recently proposed an ingenious counter argument, based on an example in which, he claims, it is predictable in advance that acts that conform to EDT will do less well than acts that conform to CDT. We raise two objections to Arntzenius’s example. We argue, first, that the example is subtly incoherent, in a way that undermines its effectiveness against EDT; and, second, that the example relies on calculating the average return over an inappropriate population of acts

Similar books and articles

Barrett and Arntzenius's Infinite Decision Puzzle.Mark J. Machina - 2000 - Theory and Decision 49 (3):291-295.
Causation and Decision.Arif Ahmed - 2010 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110 (2pt2):111-131.
Impartiality and Causal Decision Theory.Brad Armendt - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:326 - 336.
”Why Ain’cha Rich?’.David Lewis - 1981 - Noûs 15 (3):377-380.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-05-05

Downloads
537 (#30,320)

6 months
88 (#42,549)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Huw Price
University of Bonn
Arif Ahmed
Cambridge University

References found in this work

Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference.Judea Pearl - 2000 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference.Judea Pearl - 2000 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 64 (1):201-202.
Causal decision theory.David Lewis - 1981 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59 (1):5 – 30.

View all 16 references / Add more references