×

A dilemma for the imprecise Bayesian. (English) Zbl 1384.03044

Summary: Many philosophers regard the imprecise credence framework as a more realistic model of probabilistic inferences with imperfect empirical information than the traditional precise credence framework. Hence, it is surprising that the literature lacks any discussion on how to update one’s imprecise credences when the given evidence itself is imprecise. To fill this gap, I consider two updating principles. Unfortunately, each of them faces a serious problem. The first updating principle, which I call “generalized conditionalization,” sometimes forces an agent to change her imprecise degrees of belief even though she does not have new evidence. The second updating principle, which I call “the generalized dynamic Keynesian model,” may result in a very precise credal state although the agent does not have sufficiently strong evidence to justify such an informative doxastic state. This means that it is much more difficult to come up with an acceptable updating principle for the imprecise credence framework than one might have thought it would be.

MSC:

03A05 Philosophical and critical aspects of logic and foundations
03B48 Probability and inductive logic
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Bradley, R. (2007). The kinematics of belief and desire. Synthese, 156(3), 515-535. · Zbl 1125.03301 · doi:10.1007/s11229-006-9136-7
[2] Elga, A. (2000). Self-locating belief and the sleeping beauty problem. Analysis, 60(2), 143-147. · doi:10.1093/analys/60.2.143
[3] Elga, A. (2010). Subjective probabilities should be sharp. Philosophers Imprint, 10(5), 10-11.
[4] Goldman, A. I. (1999). Internalism exposed. The Journal of Philosophy, 96(6), 271-293. · doi:10.2307/2564679
[5] Goldman, A. I. (2009). Internalism, externalism, and the architecture of justification. The Journal of Philosophy, 309-338.
[6] Harman, G. (2008). Change in view: Principles of reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[7] Huemer, M. (1999). The problem of memory knowledge. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 80(4), 346-357. · doi:10.1111/1468-0114.00088
[8] Jeffrey, R.; Earman, John (ed.), Bayesianism with a human face, No. 10, 133-156 (1983), Minneapolis
[9] Jeffrey, R. (1983b). The logic of decision. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[10] Jeffrey, R. (1987). Indefinite probability judgement. Philosophy of Science, 54(4), 588-591. · doi:10.1086/289407
[11] Joyce, J. M. (2010). A defense of imprecise credences in inference and decision making. Philosophical Perspectives, 24(1), 281-323. · doi:10.1111/j.1520-8583.2010.00194.x
[12] Kaplan, M. (1998). Decision theory as philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · Zbl 0885.62004
[13] Kim, N. (2009). Sleeping Beauty and shifted Jeffrey conditionalization. Synthese, 168(2), 295-312. · Zbl 1179.03007 · doi:10.1007/s11229-008-9443-2
[14] Lewis, D. K. (1980). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. Studies in inductive logic and probability, 2, 263-293.
[15] Lewis, D. K. (2001). Sleeping beauty: A reply to Elga. Analysis, 61(3), 171-176. · doi:10.1093/analys/61.3.171
[16] Meacham, C. (2008). Sleeping beauty and the dynamics of de se beliefs. Philosophical Studies, 138, 245-269. · doi:10.1007/s11098-006-9036-1
[17] Rinard, S. (2013). Against radical credal imprecision. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 2(2), 157-165.
[18] Titelbaum, M. G. (2008). The relevance of self-locating beliefs. Philosophical Review, 117(4), 555-606. · doi:10.1215/00318108-2008-016
[19] Van Fraassen, B. C. (2006). Vague expectation value loss. Philosophical Studies, 127(3), 483-491. · doi:10.1007/s11098-004-7821-2
[20] Weatherson, B. (2007). VII-the bayesian and the dogmatist. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 107, 169-185. · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9264.2007.00217.x
[21] Weintraub, R. (2004). Sleeping beauty: A simple solution. Analysis, 64(1), 8-10. · doi:10.1093/analys/64.1.8
[22] White, R. (2010). Evidential symmetry and mushy credence. In T. Szabó Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.) Oxford studies in epistemology V. 3, 161-186.
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.