Erkenntnis 77 (1):15-30 (2012)
|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|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Mark J. Machina (2000). Barrett and Arntzenius's Infinite Decision Puzzle. Theory and Decision 49 (3):291-295.
Eric G. Cavalcanti (2010). Causation, Decision Theory, and Bell's Theorem: A Quantum Analogue of the Newcomb Problem. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (3):569-597.
Brad Armendt (1986). A Foundation for Causal Decision Theory. Topoi 5 (1):3-19.
Frank Arntzenius (2008). No Regrets, Or: Edith Piaf Revamps Decision Theory. Erkenntnis 68 (2):277-297.
Brad Armendt (1988). Impartiality and Causal Decision Theory. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:326 - 336.
Jeffrey A. Barrett & Frank Arntzenius (2002). Why the Infinite Decision Puzzle is Puzzling. Theory and Decision 52 (2):139-147.
Arif Ahmed (2010). Causation and Decision. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 110 (2pt2):111-131.
David Lewis (1981). `Why Ain'cha Rich?'. Noûs 15 (3):377-380.
Added to index2010-05-05
Total downloads65 ( #13,996 of 549,198 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,790 of 549,198 )
How can I increase my downloads?