Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Reflections on reflection: Van Fraassen on belief

  • 134 Accesses

  • 8 Citations

Abstract

In ‘Belief and the Will’, van Fraassen employed a diachronic Dutch Book argument to support a counterintuitive principle called Reflection. There and subsequently van Fraassen has put forth Reflection as a linchpin for his views in epistemology and the philosophy of science, and for the voluntarism (first-person reports of subjective probability are undertakings of commitments) that he espouses as an alternative to descriptivism (first-person reports of subjective probability are merely self-descriptions). Christensen and others have attacked Reflection, taking it to have unpalatable consequences. We prescind from the question of the cogency of diachronic Dutch Book arguments, and focus on Reflection's proper interpretation. We argue that Reflection is not as counterintuitive as it appears — that once interpreted properly the status of the counterexamples given by Christensen and others is left open. We show also that descriptivism can make sense of Reflection, while voluntarism is not especially well suited to do so.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Armendt, B.: 1992, ‘Dutch Strategies for Diachronic Rules: When Believers See the Sure Loss Coming’, in D. Hull, M. Forbes, and K. Okruhlik (eds.),PSA 1992, Vol. I, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp. 217–29.

  2. Bacchus, F., H. Kyburg, and M. Thalos: 1990, ‘Against Conditionalization’,Synthese 85, 475–506.

  3. Christensen, D.: 1991, ‘Clever Bookies and Coherent Beliefs’,The Philosophical Review 100, 229–47.

  4. Clifford, W. K.: 1879,Lectures and Essays, Macmillan, London.

  5. Daston, L.: 1988,Classical Probability in the Enlightenment, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

  6. Gigerenzer, G., Z. Swijtink, T. Porter, L. Daston, J. Beatty, and L. Krüger: 1989,The Empire of Chance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  7. Ginet, C.: 1979, ‘Performativity’,Linguistics and Philosophy 3, 245–65.

  8. Lewis, D. K.: 1980, ‘A Subjectivist's Guide to Objective Chance’, in R. Jeffrey (ed.),Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, Vol. II, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 263–94 (reprinted with Postscripts in Lewis: 1986,Philosophical Papers, Vol. II, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 83–132.)

  9. Maher, P.: 1992, ‘Diachronic Rationality’,Philosophy of Science 59, 120–41.

  10. Ross, W. D.: 1930,The Right and the Good, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

  11. Schick, F.: 1986, ‘Dutch Bookies and Money Pumps’,Journal of Philosophy 83, 112–19.

  12. Searle, J., and D. Vanderveken: 1985,Foundations of Illocutionary Logic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  13. Skyrms, B.: 1980,Causal Necessity, Yale University Press, New Haven.

  14. Sobel, J. H.: 1987, ‘Self-doubts and Dutch Strategies’,Australasian Journal of Philosophy 65, 56–81.

  15. Sobel, J. H.: 1990, ‘Conditional Probabilities, Conditionalization, and Dutch Books’, in A. Fine, M. Forbes, and L. Wessels (eds.),PSA 1990, Vol. I, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp. 503–15.

  16. Talbott, W. J.: 1991, ‘Two Principles of Bayesian Epistemology’,Philosophical Studies 62, 135–50.

  17. Teller, P.: 1973, ‘Conditionalization and Observation’,Synthese 26, 218–58.

  18. Van Fraassen, B. C.: 1984, ‘Belief and the Will’,The Journal of Philosophy 81, 235–56.

  19. Van Fraassen, B. C.: 1985, ‘Empiricism in the Philosophy of Science’, in P. M. Churchland and C. A. Hooker (eds.),Images of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 245–308.

  20. Van Fraassen, B. C.: 1989,Laws and Symmetry, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

  21. Van Frassen, B. C.: 1990, ‘Figures in a Probability Landscape’, in J. M. Dunn and A. Gupta (eds.),Truth or Consequences, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 345–56.

Download references

Author information

Additional information

We are grateful to Nuel Belnap, Cristina Bicchieri, Susan Sterrett, Richmond Thomason, Michael Thompson, and two anonymous referees for useful discussion. For any errors that may remain, each of us blames the other guy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Green, M.S., Hitchcock, C.R. Reflections on reflection: Van Fraassen on belief. Synthese 98, 297–324 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01063945

Download citation

Keywords

  • Subjective Probability
  • Proper Interpretation
  • Dutch Book
  • Leave Open
  • Dutch Book Argument