David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studia Logica 87 (1):65 - 71 (2007)
It is a common view that the axioms of probability can be derived from the following assumptions: (a) probabilities reflect (rational) degrees of belief, (b) degrees of belief can be measured as betting quotients; and (c) a rational agent must select betting quotients that are coherent. In this paper, I argue that a consideration of reasonable betting behaviour, with respect to the alleged derivation of the first axiom of probability, suggests that (b) and (c) are incorrect. In particular, I show how a rational agent might assign a ‘probability’ of zero to an event which she is sure will occur.
|Keywords||Philosophy Computational Linguistics Mathematical Logic and Foundations Logic|
|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
John Maynard Keynes (1921). A Treatise on Probability. Dover Publications.
Jon Williamson (2004). Bayesian Nets and Causality: Philosophical and Computational Foundations. OUP Oxford.
Alan Hájek (2005). Scotching Dutch Books? Philosophical Perspectives 19 (1):139–151.
John G. Kemeny (1955). Fair Bets and Inductive Probabilities. Journal of Symbolic Logic 20 (3):263-273.
Citations of this work BETA
Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn (2013). Normative Theories of Argumentation: Are Some Norms Better Than Others? Synthese 190 (16):3579-3610.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2008). Intersubjective Corroboration. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 39 (1):124-132.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2013). Group Level Interpretations of Probability: New Directions. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 (2):188-203.
Jon Williamson (2011). Objective Bayesianism, Bayesian Conditionalisation and Voluntarism. Synthese 178 (1):67-85.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2008). On the Proximity of the Logical and ‘Objective Bayesian’ Interpretations of Probability. Erkenntnis 69 (3):335-349.
Similar books and articles
Brad Armendt (1980). Is There a Dutch Book Argument for Probability Kinematics? Philosophy of Science 47 (4):583-588.
Paul Bartha (2004). Countable Additivity and the de Finetti Lottery. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):301-321.
Brian Weatherson (2003). From Classical to Intuitionistic Probability. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 44 (2):111-123.
Wei Xiong (2011). Implications of the Dutch Book: Following Ramsey’s Axioms. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 6 (2):334-344.
Robert Titiev (1997). Arbitrage and the Dutch Book Theorem. Journal of Philosophical Research 22:477-482.
Colin Howson (1989). Subjective Probabilities and Betting Quotients. Synthese 81 (1):1 - 8.
C. Waidacher (1997). Hidden Assumptions in the Dutch Book Argument. Theory and Decision 43 (3):293-312.
T. Seidenfeld, M. J. Schervish & J. B. Kadane (1990). When Fair Betting Odds Are Not Degrees of Belief. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:517-524.
Peter Milne (1990). Scotching the Dutch Book Argument. Erkenntnis 32 (1):105--26.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads86 ( #49,030 of 1,907,520 )
Recent downloads (6 months)29 ( #25,426 of 1,907,520 )
How can I increase my downloads?