Theory and Decision

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 293–312 | Cite as

Hidden Assumptions in the Dutch Book Argument

  • C. Waidacher

Abstract

Probabilistic theories of rationality claim that degrees of belief have to satisfy the probability axioms in order to be rational. A standard argument to support this claim is the Dutch Book argument. This paper tries to show that, in spite of its popularity, the Dutch Book argument does not provide a foundation for normative theories of rationality. After a presentation of the argument and some of its criticisms a problem is pointed out: the Dutch Book argument applies only to situations with a specific formal structure. Several attempts to justify the argument for more general situations are considered and rejected. The only way to remedy the shortcoming, it is argued, seems to be the acceptance of a far-reaching and highly implausible empirical hypothesis.

Dutch Book argument degree of belief probability coherence probabilistic theories of rationality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Baillie, P.: 1973, ‘Confirmation and the Dutch Book Argument’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24, 393-397.Google Scholar
  2. Corielli, F.: 1995, ‘A Note on the Decidability of de Finetti’s Coherence’, Theory and Decision 38, 121-129.Google Scholar
  3. de Finetti, B.: 1931, ‘Sul significato soggettivo della probabilità’, Fundamenta Mathematicae 17, 298-329.Google Scholar
  4. de Finetti, B.: 1937, ‘Foresight: Its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources’, in Kyburg and Smokler (1980), pp. 53-118.Google Scholar
  5. de Finetti, B.: 1981, ‘The role of “Dutch Books” and of “Proper Scoring Rules”’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 32, 55-56.Google Scholar
  6. Gillies, D.: 1991, ‘Intersubjective Probability and Confirmation Theory’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42, 513-533.Google Scholar
  7. Heilig, K.: 1978, ‘Carnap and de Finetti on Bets and the Probability of Singular Events: The Dutch Book Argument Reconsidered’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 29, 325-346.Google Scholar
  8. Howson, C.: 1989, ‘Subjective Probabilities and Betting Quotients’, Synthese 81, 1-8.Google Scholar
  9. Jackson, F. and Pargetter, R.: 1976, ‘A Modified Dutch Book Argument’, Philosophical Studies 29, 403-407.Google Scholar
  10. Kemeny, J.G.: 1955, ‘Fair Bets and Inductive Probabilities’ Journal of Symbolic Logic 20, 263-273.Google Scholar
  11. Kennedy, R. and Chihara, C.: 1979, ‘The Dutch Book Argument: Its Logical Flaws, Its Subjective Sources’, Philosophical Studies 36, 19-33.Google Scholar
  12. Kyburg, H.E.: 1978, ‘Subjective Probability: Criticisms, Reflections, and Problems’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 7, 157-180.Google Scholar
  13. Kyburg, H.E.: 1992, ‘Getting Fancy with Probability’, Synthese 90, 189-203.Google Scholar
  14. Kyburg, H.E. and Smokler, H.E.: 1980, Studies in Subjective Probability, New York: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  15. Lakatos, I.: 1968, ‘Changes in the Problem of Inductive Logic’, in Lakatos, I. (ed.): 1968, The Problem of Inductive Logic, Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 315-417.Google Scholar
  16. Putnam, H.: 1963, ‘Probability and Confirmation’, in Putnam, H. (ed.): 1975, Philosophical Papers, Volume 1, Cambridge: University Press, pp. 293-304.Google Scholar
  17. Ramsey, F.P.: 1926, ‘Truth and Probability’, in Kyburg and Smokler (1980), pp. 23-52.Google Scholar
  18. Schick, F.: 1986, ‘Dutch Bookies and Money Pumps’, The Journal of Philosophy 83, 112-119.Google Scholar
  19. Shimony, A.: 1955, ‘Coherence and the Axioms of Confirmation’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 20, 1-28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Waidacher
    • 1
  1. 1.Tu Dresden, Institut für Theoretische PhysikDresdenGermany. E-mail

Personalised recommendations