Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-846f6c7c4f-9v9hh Total loading time: 0.282 Render date: 2022-07-06T17:54:48.590Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

DELIBERATION WELCOMES PREDICTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2016

Abstract

According to the so-called ‘deliberation crowds out prediction’ thesis, while deliberating about what you'll do, you cannot rationally have credences for what you'll do – you cannot rationally have option-credences. Versions of the thesis have been defended by authors such as Spohn, Levi, Gilboa, Price, Louise, and others. After registering a number of concerns about the thesis, I rehearse and rebut many of the main arguments for it, grouped according to their main themes: agency, vacuity, betting, and decision-theoretical considerations. I go on to suggest many possible theoretical roles for option-credences.

I locate the debate about the thesis in a broader discussion: Are there rational credence gaps – propositions to which one cannot rationally assign credences? If there are, they spell trouble for various foundations of Bayesian epistemology, including the usual ratio formula for conditional probability, conditionalization, decision theory, and independence. According to the thesis, credence gaps are completely mundane; they arise every time someone rationally deliberates. But these foundations are safe from any threat here, I contend, since the thesis is false. Deliberation welcomes prediction.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appiah, A. 1985. Assertion and Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arntzenius, F. 2008. ‘No Regrets, Or: Edith Piaf Revamps Decision Theory.’ Erkenntnis, 68: 277–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arntzenius, F., Elga, A. and Hawthorne, J. 2004. ‘Bayesianism, Infinite Decisions, and Binding.’ Mind, 113: 251–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartha, P. 2012. ‘Many Gods, Many Wagers: Pascal's Wager Meets the Replicator Dynamics.’ In Chandler, J. and Harrison, V. (eds), Probability in the Philosophy of Religion, pp. 187206. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartha, P., Barker, J. and Hájek, A. 2013. ‘Saint Peter, Saint Petersburg, and Satan.’ Synthese, 191: 629–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benci, V., Horsten, L. and Wenmackers, S. 2013. ‘Non-Archimedean Probability (NAP).’ Milan Journal of Mathematics, 81: 121–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. 1963. ‘Carnap's Intellectual Autobiography.’ In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, The Library of Living Philosophers, Vol. XI. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2010. ‘Rational Reflection.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 24: 121–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, W., Lindman, H. and Savage, L. J. 1963. ‘Bayesian Statistical Inference for Psychological Research.’ Psychological Review, 70: 193242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, A. 2007. ‘Some Counterexamples to Causal Decision Theory.’ Philosophical Review, 116: 93114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, E. ms. ‘Representation Theorems and the Grounds of Intentionality.’ PhD thesis, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Gaifman, H. 1988. ‘A Theory of Higher Order Probabilities.’ In Skyrms, B. and Harper, W. L. (eds), Causation, Chance, and Credence, pp. 191219. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, A. and Harper, W. 1978. ‘Counterfactuals and Two Kinds of Expected Utility.’ In Hooker, C. A., Leach, J. J. and McLennen, E. F. (eds), Foundations and Applications of Decision Theory, Vol. 1, pp. 153–90. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Hájek, A. 2003. ‘What Conditional Probability Could Not Be.’ Synthese, 137: 273323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hájek, A. ms. ‘Staying Regular?’Google Scholar
Hare, C. and Hedden, B. 2016. ‘Self-Reinforcing and Self-Frustrating Decisions.’ Noûs, 50: 604–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, F. 1987. Conditionals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. 1983. The Logic of Decision, 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (1st edition: 1966).Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. 1992. Probability and the Art of Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffreys, H. 1961. Theory of Probability, 3rd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. M. 2002. ‘Levi on Causal Decision Theory and the Possibility of Predicting One's Own Actions.’ Philosophical Studies, 110: 69102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemeny, J. 1955. ‘Fair Bets and Inductive Probabilities.’ Journal of Symbolic Logic, 20: 263–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I. 1988. ‘The Demons of Decision.’ The Monist, 70: 193211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I. 1997. The Covenant of Reason: Rationality and the Commitments of Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I. 2007. ‘Deliberation Does Crowd Out Prediction.’ In Rønnow-Rasmussen, T., Petersson, B., Josefsson, J. and Egonssson, D. (eds), Hommage à Wlodek: Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz. www.fil.lu.se/hommageawlodek Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1979. ‘Attitudes De Dicto and De Se.’ Philosophical Review, 88: 513–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1980. ‘A Subjectivist's Guide to Objective Chance.’ In Jeffrey, R. C. (ed.), Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, Vol II. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1981. ‘Causal Decision Theory.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 59: 530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louise, J. 2009. ‘I Won't Do It! Self-Prediction, Moral Obligation and Moral Deliberation.’ Philosophical Studies, 146: 327–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, H. 2007. ‘The Effective Indexical.’ http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4487/.Google Scholar
Price, H. 2012. ‘Causation, Chance, and the Rational Significance of Supernatural Evidence.’ Philosophical Review, 121: 483538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. 2002. ‘Does Practical Deliberation Crowd Out Self-Prediction?Erkenntnis, 57: 91122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. 1978. ‘General Propositions and Causality.’ In Mellor, D. H. (ed.), Foundations: Essays in Philosophy, Logic, Mathematics and Economics, pp. 133–51. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. 1955. ‘Coherence and the Axioms of Confirmation.’ Journal of Symbolic Logic, 20: 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimony, A. 1970. ‘Scientific Inference.’ In Colodny, R. (ed.), The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. 1990. The Dynamics of Rational Deliberation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. 1995. ‘Strict Coherence, Sigma Coherence, and the Metaphysics of Quantity.’ Philosophical Studies, 77: 3955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, R. 1988. Blindspots. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spohn, W. 1977. ‘Where Luce and Krantz Do Really Generalize Savage's Decision Model.’ Erkenntnis, 11: 113–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. 1970. ‘Probability and Conditionals.’ Philosophy of Science, 37: 6480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. 1991. ‘The Problem of Logical Omniscience, I.’ Synthese, 89: 425–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. 1984. ‘Belief and the Will.’ Journal of Philosophy, 81: 235–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. 1995. ‘Belief and the Problem of Ulysses and the Sirens.’ Philosophical Studies, 77: 737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

DELIBERATION WELCOMES PREDICTION
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

DELIBERATION WELCOMES PREDICTION
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

DELIBERATION WELCOMES PREDICTION
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *