British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (2):191-198 (2005)
|Abstract||has offered evidential decision theorists a defence against the charge that they make unintuitive recommendations for cases like Newcomb's Problem. He says that when conditional probabilities are assessed from the agent's point of view, evidential decision theory makes the same recommendation as intuition. I argue that calculating the probabilities in Price's way leads to no recommendation. It condemns the agent to perpetual oscillation between different options. Price's Argument Instability Objections Conclusion.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
W. J. Talbott (1987). Standard and Non-Standard Newcomb Problems. Synthese 70 (3):415 - 458.
Ellery Eells & Elliott Sober (1986). Common Causes and Decision Theory. Philosophy of Science 53 (2):223-245.
Huw Price (1986). Against Causal Decision Theory. Synthese 67 (2):195 - 212.
Johan E. Gustafsson (2011). A Note in Defence of Ratificationism. Erkenntnis 75 (1):147–150.
Michael Clark & Nicholas Shackel (2006). The Dr. Psycho Paradox and Newcomb's Problem. Erkenntnis 64 (1):85 - 100.
Daniel Hunter & Reed Richter (1978). Counterfactuals and Newcomb's Paradox. Synthese 39 (2):249 - 261.
James M. Joyce (2007). Are Newcomb Problems Really Decisions? Synthese 156 (3):537 - 562.
Ellery Eells (1984). Causal Decision Theory. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:177 - 200.
Phyllis Kirstin McKay (2007). Freedom, Fiction and Evidential Decision Theory. Erkenntnis 66 (3):393 - 407.
Reed Richter (1984). Rationality Revisited. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62 (4):392 – 403.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads120 ( #5,438 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,437 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?