Skip to main content
Log in

Metatickles and the dynamics of deliberation

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The traditional or “orthodox” decision rule of maximizing conditional expected utility has recently come under attack by critics who advance alternative “causal” decision theories. The traditional theory has, however, been defended. And these defenses have in turn been criticized. Here, I examine two objections to such defenses and advance a theory about the dynamics of deliberation (a diachronic theory about the process of deliberation) within the framework of which both objections to the defenses of the traditional theory fail.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, E. and Rosenkrantz, R.: 1980, ‘Applying the Jeffrey decision model to rational betting and information acquisition’, Theory and Decision 12, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N.: 1979, ‘Causal laws and effective strategy’, Nous 13, 419–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eells, E.: 1980, Newcomb's Paradox and the Principle of Maximizing Conditional Expected Utility. Doctoral dissertation, U. C. Berkeley.

  • Eells, E.: 1981, ‘Causality, Utility, and Decision’, Synthese 48, 295–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eells, E.: 1982, Rational Decision and Causality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England and New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eells, E.: 1984, ‘Newcomb's Many Solutions’, Theory and Decision 16, 59–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eells, E. and Sober, E.: 1984, ‘Probabilistic causality and the question of transitivity’, Philosophy of Science 50, 35–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard, A. and Harper, W.: 1978, ‘Counterfactuals and two kinds of expected utility’, Foundations and Applications of Decision Theory (Edited by C. A. Hooker, J. J. Leach, and E. F. McClennen), Vol. 1, pp. 125–162. D. Reidel, Dordrecht. Reprinted in Ifs (Edited by W. L. Harper, R. Stalnaker, and G. Pearce), pp. 153–190, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horwich, P.: 1983, ‘Decision theory in the light of Newcomb's problem’, manuscript, MIT.

  • Jeffrey, R. C.: 1965, The Logic of Decision, McGraw-Hill, New York; 2nd end: University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, R. C.: 1981, ‘The logic of decision defended’, Synthese 48, 473–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, R. C.: 1983, ‘The logic of decision revised’, manuscript, Princeton.

  • Kyburg, H. E. Jr.: 1974, The Logical Foundations of Statistical Inference, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyburg, H. E. Jr.: 1980, ‘Acts and conditional probability’, Theory and Decision 12, 149–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, I.: 1975, ‘Newcomb's many problems’, Theory and Decision 6, 161–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D.: 1981, ‘Causal decision theory’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59, 5–30.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms, B.: 1982, ‘Causal decision theory’, Journal of Philosophy 79, 695–711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P.: 1970, A Probabilistic Theory of Causality, North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eells, E. Metatickles and the dynamics of deliberation. Theor Decis 17, 71–95 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00140057

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00140057

Keywords

Navigation