Subjective Probabilities Should be Sharp

Philosophers' Imprint 10 (05) (2010)
Abstract Many have claimed that unspecific evidence sometimes demands unsharp, indeterminate, imprecise, vague, or interval-valued probabilities. Against this, a variant of the diachronic Dutch Book argument shows that perfectly rational agents always have perfectly sharp probabilities
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 5,679
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Configure

    Similar books and articles
    Seamus Bradley (2012). Dutch Book Arguments and Imprecise Probabilities. In Dennis Dieks, Stephan Hartmann, Michael Stoeltzner & Marcel Weber (eds.), Probabilities, Laws and Structures. Springer.
    Jordan Howard Sobel (1990). Conditional Probabilities, Conditionalization, and Dutch Books. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:503 - 515.
    Niki Pfeifer & G. D. Kleiter (2007). Human Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities: Modus Ponens and Denying the Antecedent. In Proceedings of the 5 T H International Symposium on Imprecise Probability: Theories and Applications.
    Donald Gillies (1991). Intersubjective Probability and Confirmation Theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42 (4):513-533.

    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2010-12-29

    Total downloads

    38 ( #30,893 of 549,088 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    9 ( #7,757 of 549,088 )

    How can I increase my downloads?


    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.

    Other forums