Diachronic Dutch Books and Evidential Import

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
A handful of well-known arguments (the 'diachronic Dutch book arguments') rely upon theorems establishing that, in certain circumstances, you are immune from sure monetary loss (you are not 'diachronically Dutch bookable') if and only if you adopt the strategy of conditionalizing (or Jeffrey conditionalizing) on whatever evidence you happen to receive. These theorems require non-trivial assumptions about which evidence you might acquire---in the case of conditionalization, the assumption is that, if you might learn that e, then it is not the case that you might learn something else that is consistent with e. These assumptions may not be relaxed. When they are, not only will non-(Jeffrey) conditionalizers be immune from diachronic Dutch bookability, but (Jeffrey) conditionalizers will themselves be diachronically Dutch bookable. I argue: 1) that there are epistemic situations in which these assumptions are violated; 2) that this reveals a conflict between the premise that susceptibility to sure monetary loss is irrational, on the one hand, and the view that rational belief revision is a function of your prior beliefs and the acquired evidence alone, on the other; and 3) that this inconsistency demonstrates that diachronic Dutch book arguments for (Jeffrey) conditionalization are invalid.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
GALDDB
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-10-16
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Elusive Knowledge.Lewis, David
Knowledge and its Limits.Williamson, Timothy

View all 30 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2017-10-16

Total downloads
81 ( #23,529 of 37,187 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
27 ( #13,167 of 37,187 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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