Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reversing 30 years of discussion: why causal decision theorists should one-box

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper will show how one may rationalize one-boxing in Newcomb’s problem and drinking the toxin in the Toxin puzzle within the confines of causal decision theory by ascending to so-called reflexive decision models which reflect how actions are caused by decision situations (beliefs, desires, and intentions) represented by ordinary unreflexive decision models.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barwise J. (1990) On the model theory of common knowledge. In: J. Barwise (eds) The situation in logic. CSLI Lecture Notes 17. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratman M. E. (1999) Faces of intention. Selected essays on intention and agency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, R., Sowden, L. (eds) (1985) Paradoxes of rationality and cooperation. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • Eells E. (1982) Rational decision and causality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn P. C. (1964) Decision and value theory. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank R. H. (1988) Passions within reason. The strategic role of the emotions. W. W. Norton & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard A., Harper W. L. (1978) Counterfactuals and two kinds of expected utility. In: Hooker C. A., Leach J. J., McClennen E. F. (eds) Foundations and applications of decision theory. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 125–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond P. J. (1976) Changing tastes and coherent dynamic choice. Review of Economic Studies 43: 159–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond P. J. (1988) Consequentialist foundations for expected utility. Theory and Decision 25: 25–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard R. A., Matheson J. E. (1981) Influence diagrams. In: Howard R. A., Matheson J. E. (eds) Readings on the principles and applications of decision analysis. Strategic Decisions Group, Menlo Park, CA, pp 719–762

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, R. C. (1965/1983). The logic of decision. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • Jeffrey R. C. (1988) How to probabilize a Newcomb problem. In: Fetzer J. H. (eds) Probability and causality. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 241–251

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey R. C. et al (1996) Decision kinematics. In: Arrow K. J. (eds) The rational foundations of economic behaviour. Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 3–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen F. V. (2001) Bayesian networks and decision graphs. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce J. M. (1999) The foundations of causal decision theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kavka G. (1983) The toxin puzzle. Analysis 43: 33–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyburg H. E. Jr. (1980) Acts and conditional probabilities. Theory and Decision 12: 149–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi I. (1986) Hard choices. Decision making under unresolved conflict. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1981a) Causal decision theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59: 5–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1981b) Why Ain’cha rich?. Noûs 15: 377–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClennen E. F. (1990) Rationality and dynamic choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meek C., Glymour C. (1994) Conditioning and intervening. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45: 1001–1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nozick R. et al (1969) Newcomb’s problem and two principles of choice. In: Rescher N. (eds) Essays in honor of Carl G. Hempel. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 114–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl J. (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl J. (2000) Causality. Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowicz W. (2002) Does practical deliberation crowd out self-prediction?. Erkenntnis 57: 91–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson T., Spirtes P. (2002) Ancestral Markov graphical models. Annals of Statistics 30: 962–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson T., Spirtes P. (2003) Causal inference via ancestral graph models. In: Green P., Hjort N., Richardson S. (eds) Highly structured stochastic systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 83–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. J. (1954/1972). The foundations of statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Dover.

  • Shafer G. (1996) The art of causal conjecture. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms B. (1984) Pragmatics and empiricism. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel J. H. (1994) Taking chances: Essays on rational choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (1993/2000). Causation, prediction, and search (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.

  • Spohn, W. (1976/1978). Grundlagen der Entscheidungstheorie. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Munich, Munich (1976), Scriptor, Kronberg/Ts (1978).

  • Spohn W. (1977) Where Luce and Krantz do really generalize Savage’s decision model. Erkenntnis 11: 113–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spohn W. (1980) Stochastic independence, causal independence, and shieldability. Journal of Philosophical Logic 9: 73–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spohn W. (2001) Bayesian nets are all there is to causal dependence. In: Costantini D., Galavotti M. C., Suppes P. (eds) Stochastic dependence and causality. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 157–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn W. (2003) Dependency equilibria and the causal structure of decision and game situations. Homo Oeconomicus 20: 195–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn W. (2009) Why the received models of considering preference change must fail. In: Grüne-Yanoff T., Hansson S. O. (eds) Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn, W. (forthcoming). The laws of belief. Ranking theory and its philosophical applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Strotz, R. H. (1955/1956). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Review of Economic Studies, 23, 165–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verma T., Pearl J. et al (1990) Causal networks: Semantics and expressiveness. In: Shachter R. D. (eds) Uncertainty in artificial intelligence. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 69–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright S. (1934) The method of path coefficients. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 5: 161–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaari M. E. (1977) Endogeneous changes in tastes: A philosophical discussion. Erkenntnis 11: 157–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Konstanz, 78457, Konstanz, Germany

    Wolfgang Spohn

Authors
  1. Wolfgang Spohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang Spohn.

Additional information

I dedicate this paper to Karel Lambert, a first version of which I have presented on the conference on occasion of his 75th birthday at UCI in April 2003. And I am indebted to the thoughtful remarks of an anonymous referee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spohn, W. Reversing 30 years of discussion: why causal decision theorists should one-box. Synthese 187, 95–122 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0023-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0023-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation