Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 67 (3):391-409 (2000)
|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|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Alan Hájek (2003). What Conditional Probability Could Not Be. Synthese 137 (3):273--323.
Teddy Seidenfeld, Remarks on the Theory of Conditional Probability: Some Issues of Finite Versus Countable Additivity.
J. Robert G. Williams (2012). Generalized Probabilism: Dutch Books and Accuracy Domination. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (5):811-840.
Robert C. Stalnaker (1970). Probability and Conditionals. Philosophy of Science 37 (1):64-80.
Richard Dietz (2010). On Generalizing Kolmogorov. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51 (3):323-335.
Charles G. Morgan (1999). Conditionals, Comparative Probability, and Triviality: The Conditional of Conditional Probability Cannot Be Represented in the Object Language. Topoi 18 (2):97-116.
Frank Doring (2000). Conditional Probability and Dutch Books. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):391 - 409.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads31 ( #44,895 of 739,406 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,406 )
How can I increase my downloads?