Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T02:26:42.798Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DELIBERATION WELCOMES PREDICTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2016

Alan Hájek
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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
Information
Episteme , Volume 13 , Special Issue 4: 2015 Episteme Conference , December 2016 , pp. 507 - 528
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

REFERENCES

Appiah, A. 1985. Assertion and Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arntzenius, F. 2008. ‘No Regrets, Or: Edith Piaf Revamps Decision Theory.’ Erkenntnis, 68: 277–97.Google Scholar
Arntzenius, F., Elga, A. and Hawthorne, J. 2004. ‘Bayesianism, Infinite Decisions, and Binding.’ Mind, 113: 251–83.Google 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. 187–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bartha, P., Barker, J. and Hájek, A. 2013. ‘Saint Peter, Saint Petersburg, and Satan.’ Synthese, 191: 629–60.Google Scholar
Benci, V., Horsten, L. and Wenmackers, S. 2013. ‘Non-Archimedean Probability (NAP).’ Milan Journal of Mathematics, 81: 121–51.Google 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.Google Scholar
Edwards, W., Lindman, H. and Savage, L. J. 1963. ‘Bayesian Statistical Inference for Psychological Research.’ Psychological Review, 70: 193–242.Google Scholar
Egan, A. 2007. ‘Some Counterexamples to Causal Decision Theory.’ Philosophical Review, 116: 93–114.Google 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. 191–219. 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: 273–323.Google Scholar
Hájek, A. ms. ‘Staying Regular?’Google Scholar
Hare, C. and Hedden, B. 2016. ‘Self-Reinforcing and Self-Frustrating Decisions.’ Noûs, 50: 604–28.Google 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.Google 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: 69–102.Google Scholar
Kemeny, J. 1955. ‘Fair Bets and Inductive Probabilities.’ Journal of Symbolic Logic, 20: 263–73.Google Scholar
Levi, I. 1988. ‘The Demons of Decision.’ The Monist, 70: 193–211.Google 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.Google 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: 5–30.Google Scholar
Louise, J. 2009. ‘I Won't Do It! Self-Prediction, Moral Obligation and Moral Deliberation.’ Philosophical Studies, 146: 327–48.Google 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: 483–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. 2002. ‘Does Practical Deliberation Crowd Out Self-Prediction?’ Erkenntnis, 57: 91–122.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: 1–28.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: 39–55.Google 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.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. 1970. ‘Probability and Conditionals.’ Philosophy of Science, 37: 64–80.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. 1991. ‘The Problem of Logical Omniscience, I.’ Synthese, 89: 425–40.Google 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: 7–37.Google Scholar