Gandalf’s solution to the Newcomb problem Article
First Online: 15 March 2011 Received: 26 October 2010 Accepted: 02 March 2011 DOI :
10.1007/s11229-011-9900-1
Cite this article as: Wedgwood, R. Synthese (2013) 190: 2643. doi:10.1007/s11229-011-9900-1
Abstract This article proposes a new theory of rational decision, distinct from both causal decision theory (CDT) and evidential decision theory (EDT). First, some intuitive counterexamples to CDT and EDT are presented. Then the motivation for the new theory is given: the correct theory of rational decision will resemble CDT in that it will not be sensitive to any comparisons of absolute levels of value across different states of nature, but only to comparisons of the differences in value between the available options within states of nature; however, the correct theory will also resemble EDT in that it will rely on conditional probabilities (not unconditional probabilities). The new theory gives a prominent role to the notion of a “benchmark” for each state of nature, by comparison with which the value of the available options in that state of nature are measured, and so it has been called the Benchmark Theory (BT). It is argued that BT gives the right verdict on the cases that seem to be counterexamples to CDT and EDT. Finally, some objections to BT are considered and answered.
Keywords Rational choice Causal decision theory Evidential decision theory Probability Incommensurability
References Arntzenius F. (2008) No regrets, or: Edith Piaf revamps decision theory. Erkenntnis 68: 277–297
CrossRef Google Scholar Arrow K. (1963) Social choice and individual values (2nd ed.). Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
Google Scholar Binmore K. (2009) Rational decisions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Google Scholar Briggs R. (2010) Decision-theoretic paradoxes as voting paradoxes. Philosophical Review 119: 1–30
CrossRef Google Scholar Broome J. (1991) Weighing goods. Blackwell, Oxford
Google Scholar Broome J. (1997) Is incommensurability vagueness?. In: Chang R. (Ed.) Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 67–89
Google Scholar Eells E. (1989) The popcorn problem: Sobel on evidential decision theory and deliberation-probability dynamics. Synthese 81: 9–20
CrossRef Google Scholar Egan A. (2007) Some counterexamples to causal decision theory. Philosophical Review 116: 93–114
CrossRef Google Scholar Gibbard A., Harper W. (1978) Counterfactuals and two kinds of expected utility. In: Hooker C. A., Leach J. J., McClennen E. F. (eds) Foundations and applications of decision theory. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 125–162
CrossRef Google Scholar Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan . London.
Jeffrey R. (1983) The logic of decision (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Google Scholar Joyce J. M. (1999) Foundations of causal decision theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
CrossRef Google Scholar Joyce, J. M. (forthcoming). Ratifiability and stability in causal decision theory . Draft of 10 July 2010.
Lewis, D. K. (1981). Causal decision theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 59 , 5–30. Reprinted in Lewis (1985, 305–337).
Lewis, D. K. (1985). Philosophical papers (Vol. II). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nozick R. (1969) Newcomb’s problem and two principles of choice. In: Rescher N. (Ed.) Essays in honor of Carl G. Hempel. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 107–133
Google Scholar Savage L. J. (1972) The foundations of statistics (2nd ed.). Dover, New York
Google Scholar Sen A. K. (1973) On economic inequality. Oxford University Press, Oxford
CrossRef Google Scholar Sen A. K. (1993) Internal consistency of choice. Econometrica 61: 495–521
CrossRef Google Scholar Setiya K. (2007) Reasons without rationalism. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
Google Scholar Sobel J. H. (1988) Defences and conservative revisions of evidential decision theories: Metatickles and ratificationism. Synthese 75: 107–131
CrossRef Google Scholar Tolkien J. R. R. (1954) The fellowship of the ring: Being the first part of the lord of the rings. Allen & Unwin, London
Google Scholar Weatherson B. (2001) Indicative and subjunctive conditionals. Philosophical Quarterly 51: 200–216
CrossRef Google Scholar Weirich P. (1985) Decision instability. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63: 465–472
CrossRef Google Scholar © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Authors and Affiliations 1. Merton College University of Oxford Oxford UK