Mixed strategies, uncountable times, and Pascal's Wager: a reply to Robertson

Analysis 72 (4):681-685 (2012)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Pascal’s Wager holds that one has pragmatic reason to believe in God, since that course of action has infinite expected utility. The mixed strategy objection holds that one could just as well follow a course of action that has infinite expected utility but is unlikely to end with one believing in God. Monton (2011. Mixed strategies can’t evade Pascal’s Wager. Analysis 71: 642–45.) has argued that mixed strategies can’t evade Pascal’s Wager, while Robertson (2012. Some mixed strategies can evade Pascal’s Wager: a reply to Monton. Analysis 72: 295–98.) has argued that Monton is mistaken. We show that Monton is correct, highlight the crucial assumptions that he relies on, and shed some light on the role of mixed strategies in decision theory
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
EASMSU
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-05-04
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2012-09-11

Total views
187 ( #16,288 of 40,615 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
15 ( #28,898 of 40,615 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.