Hypothesis Testing, “Dutch Book” Arguments, and Risk

Philosophy of Science 82 (5):917-929 (2015)

Authors
Daniel Malinsky
Carnegie Mellon University
Abstract
“Dutch Book” arguments and references to gambling theorems are typical in the debate between Bayesians and scientists committed to “classical” statistical methods. These arguments have rarely convinced non-Bayesian scientists to abandon certain conventional practices, partially because many scientists feel that gambling theorems have little relevance to their research activities. In other words, scientists “don’t bet.” This article examines one attempt, by Schervish, Seidenfeld, and Kadane, to progress beyond such apparent stalemates by connecting “Dutch Book”–type mathematical results with principles actually endorsed by practicing experimentalists
Keywords Hypothesis testing  Dutch Book argument  Bayesianism  Frequentism  Risk
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/683341
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

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

Theory and Evidence.Clark Glymour - 1980 - Philosophy of Science 48 (3):498-500.
Truth and Probability.F. Ramsey - 1926 - In Antony Eagle (ed.), Philosophy of Probability: Contemporary Readings. Routledge. pp. 52-94.
Scotching Dutch Books?Alan Hajek - 2005 - Philosophical Perspectives 19 (1):139-151.
Subjective Probability: Criticisms, Reflections, and Problems. [REVIEW]H. Kyburg - 1978 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 7 (1):157 - 180.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Stopping rules as experimental design.Samuel C. Fletcher - 2019 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9 (2):1-20.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Dutch Book Arguments and Consistency.Colin Howson - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:161 - 168.
Begging the Question and Bayesians.Brian Weatherson - 1999 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 30:687-697.
Depragmatized Dutch Book Arguments.Patrick Maher - 1997 - Philosophy of Science 64 (2):291-305.
A Mistake in Dynamic Coherence Arguments?Brian Skyrms - 1993 - Philosophy of Science 60 (2):320-328.
Preference-Based Arguments for Probabilism.David Christensen - 2001 - Philosophy of Science 68 (3):356-376.
Dutch Books, Additivity, and Utility Theory.Brad Armendt - 1993 - Philosophical Topics 21 (1):1-20.
Is There a Dutch Book Argument for Probability Kinematics?Brad Armendt - 1980 - Philosophy of Science 47 (4):583-588.
Dutch Strategies for Diachronic Rules: When Believers See the Sure Loss Coming.Brad Armendt - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:217 - 229.
Hidden Assumptions in the Dutch Book Argument.C. Waidacher - 1997 - Theory and Decision 43 (3):293-312.
A Rate of Incoherence Applied to Fixed-Level Testing.Mark J. Schervish, Teddy Seidenfeld & Joseph B. Kadane - 2002 - Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2002 (3):S248-S264.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-12-08

Total views
200 ( #38,856 of 2,286,140 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
23 ( #38,225 of 2,286,140 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature