Abstract
I maintain, in defending “thirdism,” that Sleeping Beauty should do Bayesian updating after assigning the “preliminary probability” 1/4 to the statement S: “Today is Tuesday and the coin flip is heads.” (This preliminary probability obtains relative to a specific proper subset I of her available information.) Pust objects that her preliminary probability for S is really zero, because she could not be in an epistemic situation in which S is true. I reply that the impossibility of being in such an epistemic situation is irrelevant, because relative to I, statement S nonetheless has degree of evidential support 1/4.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barnes E.C., (1999). The quantitative problem of old evidence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 50:249–264
Glymour C., (1980). Theory and evidence. Princeton, Princeton University Press
Horgan T., (2004). Sleeping Beauty awakened: New odds at the dawn of the new day. Analysis, 64:10–21
Horgan T., (2007). “Synchronic Bayesian updating and the generalized Sleeping Beauty problem. Analysis, 67:50–59
Howson C., (1984). Bayesianism and support by novel facts. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 35:245–251
Howson C., (1985). Some recent objections to the Bayesian theory of support. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 36:305–359
Howson C., (1991). The ‘old evidence’ problem. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 42:547–555
Jeffrey R., (1995). Probability reparation: The problem of new explanation. Philosophical Studies, 77:97–101
Monton, B. (forthcoming). God, fine-tuning, the the problem of old evidence.
Pust, J. (forthcoming). Horgan on Sleeping Beauty.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Horgan, T. Synchronic Bayesian updating and the Sleeping Beauty problem: reply to Pust. Synthese 160, 155–159 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9121-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9121-1