Synthese

, Volume 164, Issue 2, pp 281–287 | Cite as

Diachronic Dutch Books and Sleeping Beauty

Article

Abstract

Hitchcock advances a diachronic Dutch Book argument (DDB) for a 1/3 answer to the Sleeping Beauty problem. Bradley and Leitgeb argue that Hitchcock’s DDB argument fails. We demonstrate the following: (a) Bradley and Leitgeb’s criticism of Hitchcock is unconvincing; (b) nonetheless, there are serious reasons to worry about the success of Hitchcock’s argument; (c) however, it is possible to construct a new DDB for 1/3 about which such worries cannot be raised.

Keywords

Sleeping Beauty Christopher Hitchcock Dutch Book argument 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arntzenius F. (2002). Reflections on Sleeping Beauty. Analysis, 62, 53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley D., Leitgeb H. (2006). When betting odds and credences come apart: More worries for Dutch book arguments. Analysis, 66, 119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christiansen D. (1991). Clever bookies and coherent beliefs. Philosophical Review, 100, 229–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Elga A. (2000). Self-locating belief and the Sleeping Beauty problem. Analysis, 60, 143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hitchcock C. (2004). Beauty and the bets. Synthese, 139, 405–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Horgan T. (1981). Counterfactuals and Newcomb’s problem. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 331–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lewis D. (2001). Sleeping Beauty: Reply to Elga. Analysis, 61, 171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations