Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 5, pp 809–830

The interference problem for the betting interpretation of degrees of belief

Article
  • 251 Downloads

Abstract

The paper’s target is the historically influential betting interpretation of subjective probabilities due to Ramsey and de Finetti. While there are several classical and well-known objections to this interpretation, the paper focuses on just one fundamental problem: There is a sense in which degrees of belief cannot be interpreted as betting rates. The reasons differ in different cases, but there’s one crucial feature that all these cases have in common: The agent’s degree of belief in a proposition A does not coincide with her degree of belief in a conditional that A would be the case if she were to bet on A, where the belief in this conditional itself is conditioned on the supposition that the agent will have an opportunity to make such a bet. Even though the two degrees of belief sometimes can coincide (they will coincide in those cases when the bet has no expected causal bearings on the proposition A and the opportunity to bet have no evidential bearings on that proposition), it is the latter belief rather than the former that guides the agent’s rational betting behaviour. The reason is that this latter belief takes into consideration potential interferences that bet opportunities and betting itself might create with regard to the proposition to be betted on. It is because of this interference problem that the agent’s degree of belief in A cannot be interpreted as her betting rate for A.

Keywords

Belief Probability Bets Betting interpretation Betting rate Conditionals Causal decision theory Sleeping beauty Ramsey de Finetti 

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. Aumann R. J., Hart, S., & Perry, M. (2005). Conditioning and the sure-thing principle. Discussion paper series DP-393. Jerusalem: Center for Rationality and Interactive Decision Theory, Hebrew University.Google Scholar
  3. Blamey, J. (2011). Challenging the assumption of stake-size invariance. draft.Google Scholar
  4. Bovens L., Rabinowicz W. (2010) The puzzle of the hats. Synthese 172: 57–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley D., Leitgeb H. (2006) When betting odds and credences come apart: More worries for Dutch book arguments. Analysis 66: 27–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Finetti, B. (1990). Theory of probability, Vol. I (1st edn, 1974). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Egan A. (2007) Some counterexamples to causal decision theory. Philosophical Review 116: 93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eriksson L., Hajek A. (2007) What are degrees of belief?.  Studia Logica 86: 185–215Google Scholar
  9. Gibbard, A., & Harper, W. (1981 [1978]). Counterfactuals and two kinds of expected utility. In W. Harper, R. Stalnaker & G. Pearce (Eds.), Ifs (pp. 153–190). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  10. Hájek, A. (ms). Most counterfactuals are false. book manuscript.Google Scholar
  11. Hájek Alan (2008) Dutch book arguments. In: Anand P., Pattanaik P., Puppe C. (eds) The Oxford handbook of rational and social choice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 173–195Google Scholar
  12. Hájek, A. (2009). Interpretations of probability. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved July 23, 2009 from http://www.science.uva.nl/~eop/entries/probability-interpret/.
  13. Hammond, P. (2008). Isolation, assurance and rules. In B. Kaushik & K. Ravi (Eds.), Arguments for a better world: Essays in honor of Amartya Sen, Vol 1; ethics, welfare, and measurement, Chap. 28 (pp. 523–534). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jeffrey R. (1956) Valuation and acceptance of scientific hypotheses. Philosophy of Science 23: 237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Joyce J. M. (1998) A nonpragmatic vindication of probabilism. Philosophy of Science 65: 575–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Joyce, J. M. (2011). Regret and instability in causal decision theory. In H. Arlo-Costa & J. Helzner (Eds.), Synthese on the foundations of decision theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kant, I. (1929 [1787]). Critique of pure reason. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Kant, I. (1904 [1787]). Kritik der Reinen Vernunft. Akademieausgabe, III. http://www.korpora.org/kant/aa03/.
  19. Lewis D. (1979) Prisoner’s dilemma is a Newcomb problem. Philosophy and Public Affairs 8: 25–40Google Scholar
  20. Levi I. (1997) The covenant of reason. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Masel J. (2007) A Bayesian model of quasi-magical thinking can explain observed cooperation in the public good game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 64: 31–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morris M. W., Sim D. L. H., Girotto V. (1998) Distinguishing sources of cooperation in the one-round prisoner’s dilemma: Evidence for cooperative decisions based on the illusion of control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 34: 494–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Putnam H. (1965) Brains and behavior. In: Butler R. J. (eds) Analytical philosophy, second series. Barnes and Noble, New York, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  24. Rabinowicz W. (2002) Does practical deliberation crowd out self-prediction?.  Erkenntnis 57: 91–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ramsey, F. P. (1931 [1926]). Truth and probability. In F. Ramsey & R. B. Braithwaite (Eds.), Foundations of mathematics and other essays (pp. 156–98). London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. & New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
  26. Shafir E., Tversky A. (1992) Thinking through uncertainty: Nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cognitive Psychology 24: 449–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spohn W. (1977) Where Luce and Krantz do really generalize Savage’s decision model. Erkenntnis 11: 34–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Strawson G. (1994) Mental reality. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. van Fraassen B. (1980) Review of Brian Ellis, ‘rational belief systems’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 10: 497–511Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations