An Improper Introduction to Epistemic utility theory
In Henk de Regt, Samir Okasha & Stephan Hartmann (eds.), Proceedings of EPSA: Amsterdam '09. Springer (2011)
| Abstract | Beliefs come in different strengths. What are the norms that govern these strengths of belief? Let an agent's belief function at a particular time be the function that assigns, to each of the propositions about which she has an opinion, the strength of her belief in that proposition at that time. Traditionally, philosophers have claimed that an agent's belief function at any time ought to be a probability function (Probabilism), and that she ought to update her belief function upon obtaining new evidence by conditionalizing on that evidence (Conditionalization). Until recently, the central arguments for these claims have been pragmatic. But these putative justifications fail to identify what is epistemically irrational about violating Probabilism or Conditionalization. A new approach, which I will call epistemic utility theory, attempts to remedy this. It treats beliefs as epistemic acts; and it appeals to the notion of an epistemic utility function, which measures of how epistemically valuable a particular belief function is for a particular way the world might be. It then formulates fundamental epistemic norms that are analogous to the fundamental practical norms that underlie decision theory. I survey the results obtained so far in this young research project, and present a sustained critique of certain assumptions that have been made by a number of philosophers working in this area. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRalph Wedgwood (2002). The Aim of Belief. Philosophical Perspectives 16 (s16):267-97.
Wei Xiong (2011). Implications of the Dutch Book: Following Ramsey's Axioms. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 6 (2):334-344.
Prakash P. Shenoy (1991). On Spohn's Theory of Epistemic Beliefs. In B. Bouchon-Meunier, R. R. Yager & L. A. Zadeh (eds.), Uncertainty in Knowledge Bases. Springer.
Prakash P. Shenoy (1991). On Spohn's Rule for Revision of Beliefs. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 5 (2):149-181.
Steven L. Reynolds (2011). Doxastic Voluntarism and the Function of Epistemic Evaluations. Erkenntnis 75 (1):19-35.
Brian Weatherson (2005). Can We Do Without Pragmatic Encroachment? Philosophical Perspectives 19 (1):417–443.
Robin Giles (1992). A Generalization of the Theory of Subjective Probability and Expected Utility. Synthese 90 (2):301 - 343.
Philip Percival (2002). Epistemic Consequentialism: Philip Percival. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 76 (1):121–151.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-03-30Total downloads58 ( #16,906 of 549,694 )Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,337 of 549,694 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
