An objection of varying importance to epistemic utility theory

  • Benjamin A. LevinsteinEmail author


Some propositions are more epistemically important than others. Further, how important a proposition is is often a contingent matter—some propositions count more in some worlds than in others. Epistemic Utility Theory cannot accommodate this fact, at least not in any standard way. For EUT to be successful, legitimate measures of epistemic utility must be proper, i.e., every probability function must assign itself maximum expected utility. Once we vary the importance of propositions across worlds, however, normal measures of epistemic utility become improper. I argue there isn’t any good way out for EUT.


  1. Alston, W. (2005). Beyond justification: Dimensions of epistemic evaluation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Goldman, A. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Greaves, H., & Wallace, D. (2006). Justifying conditionalization: Conditionalization maximizes expected epistemic utility. Mind, 115(632), 607–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Joyce, J. M. (1998). A nonpragmatic vindication of probabilism. Philosophy of Science, 65, 575–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Joyce, J . M. (2009). Accuracy and coherence: Prospects for an alethic epistemology of partial belief. In F. Huber & C. Schmidt-Petri (Eds.), Degrees of Belief (Vol. 342, pp. 263–297). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Merkle, E. C., & Steyvers, M. (2013). Choosing a strictly proper scoring rule. Decision Analysis, 10(4), 292–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Oddie, G. (2017). What accuracy could not be. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Scholar
  8. Pettigrew, R. (2016). Accuracy and the Laws of Credence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schervish, M. (1989). A general method for comparing probability assessors. The Annals of Statistics, 17, 1856–1879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Talbot, B. (2017). Repugnant accuracy. Nous, 00(00), 1–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations