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
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
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2017-05-04
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
230 ( #24,009 of 58,329 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #46,756 of 58,329 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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