Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scotching the Dutch Book Argument

  • Published:
Erkenntnis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Consistent application of coherece arguments shows that fair betting quotients are subject to constraints that are too stringent to allow their identification with either degrees of belief or probabilities. The pivotal role of fair betting quotients in the Dutch Book Argument, which is said to demonstrate that a rational agent's degrees of belief are probabilities, is thus undermined from both sides.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • DeFinettiBruno: 1937, ‘La Prevision: ses logique, ses sources subjectives’, Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincaré 7, 1–68. English translation in H. Kyburg and H. Smokler (eds.), Studies in Subjective Probability (second edition), Krieger, Huntington, NY, 1980, pp. 53–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeFinettiBruno: 1974, Theory of Probability, Vol. 1, John Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • GoodI. J.: 1962, ‘Subjective Probability as the Measure of an Unmeasurable Set’, in E.Nagel et al. (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1962, pp. 319–29. Reprinted in H. Kyburg and H. Smokler (eds.), op. cit., pp. 133–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • HorwichPaul: 1982, Probability and Evidence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • JeffreysSirHarold: 1973, Scientific Inference (third edition), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • KoopmanB. O.: 1940, ‘The Bases of Probability’, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 46, 763–74. Reprinted in H. Kyburg and H. Smokler (eds.), op. cit., pp. 119–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • MendelsonElliott: 1979, Introduction to Mathematical Logic (second edition), Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • ShickFrederic: 1986, ‘Dutch Bookies and Money Pumps’, Journal of Philosophy 83, 112–19.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SkyrmsBrian: 1983, ‘Zeno's Paradox of Measure’ in R. S.Cohen and L.Laudan (eds.), Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 223–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • SmithC. A. B.: 1961, ‘Consistency in Statistical Inference and Decision’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B) 23, 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • ThomasonRichmond: 1984, ‘Combinations of Tense and Modality’ in D.Gabbay and F.Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 2, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 135–65.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool, P.O. Box 147, L693BX, Liverpool, UK

    Peter Milne

Authors
  1. Peter Milne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Milne, P. Scotching the Dutch Book Argument. Erkenntnis 32, 105–126 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00209558

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00209558

Keywords

Search

Navigation