Skip to main content

Diachronic Dutch Books and Sleeping Beauty

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Arntzenius F. (2002). Reflections on Sleeping Beauty. Analysis, 62, 53–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bradley D., Leitgeb H. (2006). When betting odds and credences come apart: More worries for Dutch book arguments. Analysis, 66, 119–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Christiansen D. (1991). Clever bookies and coherent beliefs. Philosophical Review, 100, 229–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Elga A. (2000). Self-locating belief and the Sleeping Beauty problem. Analysis, 60, 143–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hitchcock C. (2004). Beauty and the bets. Synthese, 139, 405–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Horgan T. (1981). Counterfactuals and Newcomb’s problem. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 331–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lewis D. (2001). Sleeping Beauty: Reply to Elga. Analysis, 61, 171–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joel Pust.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Draper, K., Pust, J. Diachronic Dutch Books and Sleeping Beauty. Synthese 164, 281–287 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9226-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sleeping Beauty
  • Christopher Hitchcock
  • Dutch Book argument