Mind 119 (473):159-169 (2010)
|Abstract||When David Lewis ( 1986 ) told us that possible worlds were a ‘paradise for philosophers’, he neglected to add that they are a minefield for decision theorists. Possibilities — be they nomological, metaphysical, or epistemic possibilities — have little to do with subjective probabilities, and it is these latter that matter most to decision theory. Bernard Katz and Doris Olin ( 2007 ) have tried to solve the two-envelope problem by appealing to possible worlds and counterfactual conditionals. In this article, I explain why any such attempt is misguided, and why we, qua decision theorists, must focus on the probable rather than the possible|
|Keywords||Two Envelopes Decision Theory Probability Counterfactual Katz Olin Paradox|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael D. Resnik & Nicoletta Orlandi (2003). Holistic Realism: A Response to Katz on Holism and Intuition. Philosophical Forum 34 (3-4):301-315.
John C. Olin (1994). Erasmus, Utopia, and the Jesuits: Essays on the Outreach of Humanism. Fordham University Press.
Doris Olin (1987). On an Epistemic Paradox. Analysis 47 (4):216 - 217.
Paul Syverson (2010). Opening Two Envelopes. Acta Analytica 25 (4):479-498.
John R. Cook (2005). Review of Doris Olin's Paradox. [REVIEW] Philosophy in Review (6):422-424.
Bernard D. Katz & Doris Olin (2007). A Tale of Two Envelopes. Mind 116 (464):903 - 926.
B. D. Katz & D. Olin (2010). Conditionals, Probabilities, and Utilities: More on Two Envelopes. Mind 119 (473):171-183.
P. A. Sutton (2010). The Epoch of Incredulity. Mind 119:159-169.
Added to index2010-08-11
Total downloads8 ( #122,917 of 548,974 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,974 )
How can I increase my downloads?