David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theory and Decision 53 (2):137-152 (2002)
When preferences are such that there is no unique additive prior, the issue of which updating rule to use is of extreme importance. This paper presents an axiomatization of the rule which requires updating of all the priors by Bayes rule. The decision maker has conditional preferences over acts. It is assumed that preferences over acts conditional on event E happening, do not depend on lotteries received on Ec, obey axioms which lead to maxmin expected utility representation with multiple priors, and have common induced preferences over lotteries. The paper shows that when all priors give positive probability to an event E, a certain coherence property between conditional and unconditional preferences is satisfied if and only if the set of subjective probability measures considered by the agent given E is obtained by updating all subjective prior probability measures using Bayes rule
|Keywords||Ambiguous beliefs Bayesian updating Dynamic choice Multiple priors Uncertainty aversion|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Nabil I. Al-Najjar & Jonathan Weinstein (2009). The Ambiguity Aversion Literature: A Critical Assessment. Economics and Philosophy 25 (3):249-284.
Similar books and articles
Bernard Walliser & Denis Zwirn (2002). Can Bayes' Rule Be Justified by Cognitive Rationality Principles? Theory and Decision 53 (2):95-135.
Jean Baratgin & Guy Politzer (2011). Updating: A Psychologically Basic Situation of Probability Revision. Thinking and Reasoning 16 (4):253-287.
Hilary Greaves & David Wallace (2006). Justifying Conditionalization: Conditionalization Maximizes Expected Epistemic Utility. Mind 115 (459):607-632.
Richard Bradley (1999). Conditional Desirability. Theory and Decision 47 (1):23-55.
Frank Döring (2000). Conditional Probability and Dutch Books. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):391-409.
Martin Peterson (2004). From Outcomes to Acts: A Non-Standard Axiomatization of the Expected Utility Principle. Journal of Philosophical Logic 33 (4):361-378.
Hans Van Den Berg, Dick Hoekzema & Hans Radder (1990). Accardi on Quantum Theory and the "Fifth Axiom" of Probability. Philosophy of Science 57 (1):149 - 157.
R. D. Rosenkrantz (1992). The Justification of Induction. Philosophy of Science 59 (4):527-539.
Michael Smithson (2011). How Many Alternatives? Partitions Pose Problems for Predictions and Diagnoses. Social Epistemology 23 (3):347-360.
Haim Gaifman (2012). Deceptive Updating and Minimal Information Methods. Synthese 187 (1):147 - 178.
Martin Peterson (2006). Indeterminate Preferences. Philosophical Studies 130 (2):297-320.
Jordan Howard Sobel (2009). Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens for Conditional Probabilities, and Updating on Uncertain Evidence. Theory and Decision 66 (2):103 - 148.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads10 ( #154,226 of 1,102,036 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #306,606 of 1,102,036 )
How can I increase my downloads?