Authors
Brian Weatherson
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Abstract
The arguments for Bayesianism in the literature fall into three broad categories. There are Dutch Book arguments, both of the traditional pragmatic variety and the modern ‘depragmatised’ form. And there are arguments from the so-called ‘representation theorems’. The arguments have many similarities, for example they have a common conclusion, and they all derive epistemic constraints from considerations about coherent preferences, but they have enough differences to produce hostilities between their proponents. In a recent paper, Maher (1997) has argued that the pragmatised Dutch Book arguments are unsound and the depragmatised Dutch Book arguments question begging. He urges we instead use the representation theorem argument as in his (1993). In this paper I argue that Maher’s own argument is question-begging, though in a more subtle and interesting way than his Dutch Book wielding opponents.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

Laws and Symmetry.Bas C. van Fraassen - 1989 - Oxford University Press.
Betting on Theories.Patrick Maher - 1993 - Cambridge University Press.
The Foundations of Statistics.Leonard J. Savage - 1956 - Philosophy of Science 23 (2):166-166.
A Mathematical Theory of Evidence.Glenn Shafer - 1976 - Princeton University Press.

View all 21 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Arguments For—Or Against—Probabilism?Alan Hájek - 2009 - In Franz Huber & Christoph Schmidt-Petri (eds.), British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Springer. pp. 229--251.
Scotching Dutch Books?Alan Hajek - 2005 - Philosophical Perspectives 19 (1):139-151.

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.
Petitio Principii: What's Wrong?Andrea Iacona & Diego Marconi - 2005 - Facta Philosophica 7 (1):19-34.
Begging the Question.Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - 1999 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77 (2):174 – 191.
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.
Depragmatized Dutch Book Arguments.Patrick Maher - 1997 - Philosophy of Science 64 (2):291-305.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
141 ( #64,060 of 2,344,262 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #62,641 of 2,344,262 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes