, Volume 79, Issue 6, pp 1287–1303 | Cite as

Uncertainty, Learning, and the “Problem” of Dilation

  • Seamus BradleyEmail author
  • Katie Steele
Original Article


Imprecise probabilism—which holds that rational belief/credence is permissibly represented by a set of probability functions—apparently suffers from a problem known as dilation. We explore whether this problem can be avoided or mitigated by one of the following strategies: (a) modifying the rule by which the credal state is updated, (b) restricting the domain of reasonable credal states to those that preclude dilation.


Probability Function Prior Belief Rational Belief Classical Rule Credal State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Thanks to Patryk Dziurosz-Serafinowicz for helpful comments when serving as discussant of the paper for the Erasmus Institute EIPE Research Seminar. Thanks also to the anonymous referees of this journal for detailed and helpful comments. SB's research supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.


  1. Bradley, S., & Steele, K. (n.d.a). Can free evidence be bad? Value of information for the imprecise probabilist.Google Scholar
  2. Bradley, S., & Steele, K. (n.d.b). Subjective probabilities need not be sharp.Google Scholar
  3. Cozman, F. (2012). Sets of probability distributions, independence and convexity. Synthese, 186, 577–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cozman, F. (n.d.). A brief introduction to the theory of sets of probability measures.
  5. Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1993). Updating ambiguous beliefs. Journal of Economic Theory, 59, 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grove, A., & Halpern, J. Y. (1998). Updating sets of probabilities. In Proceedings of the fourteenth conference on uncertainty in AI (pp. 173–182).Google Scholar
  7. Halpern, J. Y. (2003). Reasoning about uncertainty. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Joyce, J. M. (2005). How probabilities reflect evidence. Philosophical Perspectives, 19, 153–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Joyce, J. M. (2011). A defense of imprecise credence. Oxford Studies in Epistemology (vol. 4). (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  10. Kaplan, M. (2010). In defense of modest probabilism. Synthese, 176, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kyburg, H. E., & Pittarelli, M. (1992). Set-based Bayesianism. Technical Report UR CSD;TR407, University of Rochester, Computer Science Department.
  12. Kyburg, H. E., & Teng, C. M. (2001). Uncertain Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levi, I. (1974). On indeterminate probabilities. Journal of Philosophy, 71, 391–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levi, I. (1986). Hard choices: Decision making under unresolved conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis, D. (1986). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance (and postscript). In Philosophical Papers II (pp. 83–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Pedersen, A. P., & Wheeler, G. (n.d.). Demystifying dilation.Google Scholar
  17. Seidenfeld, T., & Wasserman, L. (1993). Dilation for sets of probabilities. Annals of Statistics, 21, 1139–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sturgeon, S. (2008). Reason and the grain of belief. Noûs, 42, 139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Topey, B. (2012). Coin flips, credences and the reflection principle. Analysis, 72, 478–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Fraassen, B. (1990). Figures in a probability landscape. In M. Dunn, & K. Segerberg (Eds.), Truth or consequences (pp. 345–356). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Walley, P. (1991). Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities, volume 42 of monographs on statistics and applied probability. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weatherson, B. (n.d.). Decision making with imprecise probabilities.
  23. White, R. (2010). Evidential symmetry and mushy credence. Oxford studies in epistemology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ludwig-Maximilians-UniversitätMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific MethodLondon School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)LondonUK

Personalised recommendations