A forward looking decision rule for imprecise credences

Philosophical Studies 167 (1):119-139 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Adam Elga (Philosophers’ Imprint, 10(5), 1–11, 2010) presents a diachronic puzzle to supporters of imprecise credences and argues that no acceptable decision rule for imprecise credences can deliver the intuitively correct result. Elga concludes that agents should not hold imprecise credences. In this paper, I argue for a two-part thesis. First, I show that Elga’s argument is incomplete: there is an acceptable decision rule that delivers the intuitive result. Next, I repair the argument by offering a more elaborate diachronic puzzle that is more difficult for imprecise Bayesians to avoid.

Author's Profile

Rohan Sud
Virginia Tech

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-19

Downloads
357 (#53,411)

6 months
123 (#39,534)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?