Teddy Seidenfeld
Carnegie Mellon University
It has long been known that the practice of testing all hypotheses at the same level , regardless of the distribution of the data, is not consistent with Bayesian expected utility maximization. According to de Finetti’s “Dutch Book” argument, procedures that are not consistent with expected utility maximization are incoherent and they lead to gambles that are sure to lose no matter what happens. In this paper, we use a method to measure the rate at which incoherent procedures are sure to lose, so that we can distinguish slightly incoherent procedures from grossly incoherent ones. We present an analysis of testing a simple hypothesis against a simple alternative as a case‐study of how the method can work
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/341850
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 60,992
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Coherence and the Axioms of Confirmation.Abner Shimony - 1955 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 20 (1):1-28.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Evidence and Experimental Design in Sequential Trials.Jan Sprenger - 2009 - Philosophy of Science 76 (5):637-649.
Stopping rules as experimental design.Samuel Fletcher - 2019 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9 (2):1-20.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
86 ( #121,765 of 2,439,394 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #433,565 of 2,439,394 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes