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
    The pragmatic Dutch Book argument is less convincing as a... — Carmelics
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The pragmatic Dutch Book argument is less convincing as a justification for probabilism

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The pragmatic Dutch Book argument establishes only that non-probabilistic agents can be exploited, not that probabilism is rationally required.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rational agents can simply refuse to bet, rendering the exploitation scenario moot without abandoning their degrees of belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.As Hájek (2008) argues, the pragmatic argument conflates practical rationality with epistemic rationality, making it the wrong kind of justification for a norm about belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ramsey's original framework grounding degrees of belief in preferences already acknowledges that betting odds are a idealized proxy, not a direct measure of credence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the bet-credence link is merely idealized, the Dutch Book argument proves only that idealized agents should be probabilistic, leaving real agents' epistemic norms unjustified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The pragmatic Dutch Book argument requires a tight connection between degrees of belief and betting behavior
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There are reasons to doubt that the connection between degrees of belief and betting behavior is as tight as the pragmatic Dutch Book argument requires
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Truth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism1 linked

    Related

    As Hájek (2008) argues, the pragmatic argument conflates practical rationality w...If the bet-credence link is merely idealized, the Dutch Book argument proves onl...Ramsey's original framework grounding degrees of belief in preferences already a...Rational agents can simply refuse to bet, rendering the exploitation scenario mo...
    +3 moreShow less
    The pragmatic Dutch Book argument establishes only that non-probabilistic agents...The pragmatic Dutch Book argument requires a tight connection between degrees of...There are reasons to doubt that the connection between degrees of belief and bet...

    Similar

    The depragmatized Dutch Book argument is a more promising justificatio...87%Theistic pragmatic arguments rely on believing p in cases where eviden...80%The Knowledge Norm of Assertion (KNA) explains why asserting a proposi...80%Most guidelines presuppose a probabilistic interpretation of plausibil...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: formal-belief
    View source passageHide passage
    The traditional answer is that an agent that violates the axioms of probability opens herself up, in some sense, to a system of bets that guarantee a sure loss. Answers of this flavor are called Dutch Book arguments. The pragmatic version of the argument posits a tight connection between degrees of belief and betting behavior. The argument concludes by proving a theorem to the effect that an agent would enter into a system of bets guaranteeing a sure loss iff her degrees of belief violate the pr
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit