Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (4):641 - 663 (2011)
|Abstract||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)|
|Through your library||Configure|
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 63:233-263,.
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 downloads197 ( #1,769 of 722,765 )
Recent downloads (6 months)41 ( #2,171 of 722,765 )
How can I increase my downloads?