David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (4):641 - 663 (2011)
Representation theorems are often taken to provide the foundations for decision theory. First, they are taken to characterize degrees of belief and utilities. Second, they are taken to justify two fundamental rules of rationality: that we should have probabilistic degrees of belief and that we should act as expected utility maximizers. We argue that representation theorems cannot serve either of these foundational purposes, and that recent attempts to defend the foundational importance of representation theorems are unsuccessful. As a result, we should reject these claims, and lay the foundations of decision theory on firmer ground
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Maurice Allais & Ole Hagen (eds.) (1979). Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. D. Reidel.
David Christensen (1996). Dutch-Book Arguments Depragmatized: Epistemic Consistency for Partial Believers. Journal of Philosophy 93 (9):450-479.
David Christensen (2001). Preference-Based Arguments for Probabilism. Philosophy of Science 68 (3):356-376.
David Christensen (2004). Putting Logic in its Place: Formal Constraints on Rational Belief. Oxford University Press.
Lina Eriksson & Alan Hájek (2007). What Are Degrees of Belief? Studia Logica 86 (2):185-215.
Citations of this work BETA
Brian Hedden (2013). Incoherence Without Exploitability. Noûs 47 (3):482-495.
Similar books and articles
Roman Murawski (1997). Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems and Computer Science. Foundations of Science 2 (1):123-135.
John C. Harsanyi (1977). Rule Utilitarianism and Decision Theory. Erkenntnis 11 (1):25 - 53.
Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey (1999). E-Capacities and the Ellsberg Paradox. Theory and Decision 46 (2):107-138.
James M. Joyce (2000). Why We Still Need the Logic of Decision. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):13.
Richard Bradley (1998). A Representation Theorem for a Decision Theory with Conditionals. Synthese 116 (2):187-229.
Ramón Pino Pérez & Carlos Uzcátegui (2000). On Representation Theorems for Nonmonotonic Consequence Relations. Journal of Symbolic Logic 65 (3):1321-1337.
Richard Bradley (2007). A Unified Bayesian Decision Theory. Theory and Decision 63 (3):233-263,.
Jordan Howard Sobel (1989). Partition-Theorems for Causal Decision Theories. Philosophy of Science 56 (1):70-93.
Lyle Zynda (2000). Representation Theorems and Realism About Degrees of Belief. Philosophy of Science 67 (1):45-69.
Added to index2010-07-03
Total downloads274 ( #2,357 of 1,696,806 )
Recent downloads (6 months)41 ( #7,378 of 1,696,806 )
How can I increase my downloads?