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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Arntzenius F. (2002). Reflections on Sleeping Beauty. Analysis, 62, 53–62
Bradley D., Leitgeb H. (2006). When betting odds and credences come apart: More worries for Dutch book arguments. Analysis, 66, 119–127
Christiansen D. (1991). Clever bookies and coherent beliefs. Philosophical Review, 100, 229–247
Elga A. (2000). Self-locating belief and the Sleeping Beauty problem. Analysis, 60, 143–147
Hitchcock C. (2004). Beauty and the bets. Synthese, 139, 405–420
Horgan T. (1981). Counterfactuals and Newcomb’s problem. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 331–356
Lewis D. (2001). Sleeping Beauty: Reply to Elga. Analysis, 61, 171–176
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
- Sleeping Beauty
- Christopher Hitchcock
- Dutch Book argument