Synthese 178 (1):67-85 (2011)
|Abstract||Objective Bayesianism has been criticised on the grounds that objective Bayesian updating, which on a finite outcome space appeals to the maximum entropy principle, differs from Bayesian conditionalisation. The main task of this paper is to show that this objection backfires: the difference between the two forms of updating reflects negatively on Bayesian conditionalisation rather than on objective Bayesian updating. The paper also reviews some existing criticisms and justifications of conditionalisation, arguing in particular that the diachronic Dutch book justification fails because diachronic Dutch book arguments are subject to a reductio: in certain circumstances one can Dutch book an agent however she changes her degrees of belief . One may also criticise objective Bayesianism on the grounds that its norms are not compulsory but voluntary, the result of a stance. It is argued that this second objection also misses the mark, since objective Bayesian norms are tied up in the very notion of degrees of belief.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kenny Easwaran (2011). Bayesianism I: Introduction and Arguments in Favor. Philosophy Compass 6 (5):312-320.
Jon Williamson (2007). Inductive Influence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58 (4):689 - 708.
Jon Williamson (2008). Objective Bayesianism with Predicate Languages. Synthese 163 (3):341 - 356.
Colin Howson (1996). Bayesian Rules of Updating. Erkenntnis 45 (2-3):195 - 208.
Colin Howson (1992). Dutch Book Arguments and Consistency. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:161 - 168.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads36 ( #33,034 of 549,128 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,390 of 549,128 )
How can I increase my downloads?