David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 175 (3):369-382 (2010)
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||Credence Self-location Sleeping beauty Centered proposition Uncentered proposition Conditionalization Reflection Principal principle|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Frank Arntzenius (2002). Reflections on Sleeping Beauty. Analysis 62 (1):53–62.
Frank Arntzenius (2003). Some Problems for Conditionalization and Reflection. Journal of Philosophy 100 (7):356-370.
Darren Bradley & Hannes Leitgeb (2006). When Betting Odds and Credences Come Apart: More Worries for Dutch Book Arguments. Analysis 66 (290):119–127.
Kai Draper & Joel Pust (2008). Diachronic Dutch Books and Sleeping Beauty. Synthese 164 (2):281 - 287.
Adam Elga (2000). Self-Locating Belief and the Sleeping Beauty Problem. Analysis 60 (2):143–147.
Citations of this work BETA
Patrick Hawley (2013). Inertia, Optimism and Beauty. Noûs 47 (1):85-103.
Michael G. Titelbaum (2013). Ten Reasons to Care About the Sleeping Beauty Problem. Philosophy Compass 8 (11):1003-1017.
Daniel Peterson (2011). Qeauty and the Books: A Response to Lewis's Quantum Sleeping Beauty Problem. Synthese 181 (3):367-374.
Kai Draper (2013). The Evidential Relevance of Self-Locating Information. Philosophical Studies 166 (1):185-202.
Michael G. Titelbaum (2012). An Embarrassment for Double-Halfers. Thought 1 (2):146-151.
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. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 155 (3):445-456.
Karl Karlander & Levi Spectre (2010). Sleeping Beauty Meets Monday. Synthese 174 (3):397 - 412.
Added to index2009-01-30
Total downloads62 ( #24,844 of 1,102,767 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #84,523 of 1,102,767 )
How can I increase my downloads?