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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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