Synthese 175:369-382 (2010)
|Abstract||All parties to the Sleeping Beauty debate agree that it shows that some cherished principle of rationality has to go. Thirders think that it is Conditionalization and Reflection that must be given up or modified; halfers think that it is the Principal Principle. I offer an analysis of the Sleeping Beauty puzzle that allows us to retain all three principles. In brief, I argue that Sleeping Beauty’s credence in the uncentered proposition that the coin came up heads should be 1/2, but her credence in the centered proposition that the coin came up heads and it is Monday should be 1/3. I trace the source of the earlier mistakes to an unquestioned assumption in the debate, namely that an uncentered proposition is just a special kind of centered proposition. I argue that the falsity of this assumption is the real lesson of the Sleeping Beauty case.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Brian Kierland & Bradley Monton (2005). Minimizing Inaccuracy for Self-Locating Beliefs. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (2):384-395.
Joel Pust (2012). Conditionalization and Essentially Indexical Credence. Journal of Philosophy 109 (4):295-315.
Bradley Monton (2002). Sleeping Beauty and the Forgetful Bayesian. Analysis 62 (1):47–53.
Terry Horgan (2004). Sleeping Beauty Awakened: New Odds at the Dawn of the New Day. Analysis 64 (1):10–21.
Joel Pust (2008). Horgan on Sleeping Beauty. Synthese 160 (1):97 - 101.
Namjoong Kim (2009). Sleeping Beauty and Shifted Jeffrey Conditionalization. Synthese 168 (2):295 - 312.
Brian Weatherson (2011). Stalnaker on Sleeping Beauty. Philosophical Studies 155 (3):445-456.
Karl Karlander & Levi Spectre (2010). Sleeping Beauty Meets Monday. Synthese 174 (3).
Added to index2009-01-30
Total downloads56 ( #17,848 of 549,737 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,737 )
How can I increase my downloads?