Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Liberal Bayesianism, by permitting non-rule-based revision of prior probabilities, avoids van Fraassen's Dutch Book objection

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Van Fraassen's argument generalizes beyond rule-governed inference: any diachronic belief change that permits exploitation by a clever bookie is Dutch Book-vulnerable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A Bayesian agent who revises priors without rules still faces a diachronic Dutch Book if those revisions are predictable or conditionally exploitable by an adversary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Claiming immunity by refusing to state rules is epistemically evasive, not a principled solution—it concedes arbitrariness rather than refuting the objection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rationality constraints in Bayesianism derive their force from coherence norms that apply to all belief states, not merely rule-governed transitions (Skyrms 1987).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If prior revision is permitted without any normative constraint, Liberal Bayesianism collapses into permissivism, undermining the very framework that makes Bayesian epistemology action-guiding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Avoiding an objection by abandoning the standards against which the objection is measured is not a philosophical defense but a theoretical retreat.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Van Fraassen's objection applies only to rule-governed ampliative inference
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If no rules are stated for prior probability revision, the objection cannot target such revision
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Some Bayesians accept that initial assignments and ongoing revision of priors based on plausibility arguments can be rational without rules governing them
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.