Reflecting on diachronic Dutch books

Conditionalization governs how to reallocate credence in light of new evidence. One prominent argument in favor of Conditionalization holds that an agent who violates it is vulnerable to a diachronic Dutch book: a series of acceptable bets offered at multiple times that inflict a sure loss. van Fraassen argues that an agent who violates the Principle of Reflection is likewise vulnerable to a diachronic Dutch book. He concludes that agents should conform to both Conditionalization and Reflection. Some authors reply that Reflection is implausible and hence that there must be something wrong with diachronic Dutch book arguments. Other authors try to isolate a principled difference between the Dutch book argument for Conditionalization and the Dutch book argument for Reflection, such that the former argument may succeed even though the latter fails. I pursue a version of this strategy. I contend that, once we properly elucidate the notion of sure loss, non-reflectors are not vulnerable to a sure loss. An agent who violates Reflection is not thereby subject to a diachronic Dutch book. Appearances to the contrary result from an unmotivated focus upon an overly narrow set of gambling scenarios.     

Conditionalization,Reflection, and Self-Knowledge

Van Fraassen famously endorses the Principle of Reflection as a constraint on rational credence, and argues that Reflection is entailed by the more traditional principle of Conditionalization. He draws two morals from this alleged entailment. First, that Reflection can be regarded as an alternative to Conditionalization – a more lenient standard of rationality. And second, that commitment to Conditionalization can be turned into support for Reflection. Van Fraassen also argues that Reflection implies Conditionalization, thus offering a new justification for Conditionalization. I argue that neither principle entails the other, and thus neither can be used to motivate the other in the way van Fraassen says. There are ways to connect Conditionalization to Reflection, but these connections depend on poor assumptions about our introspective access, and are not tight enough to draw the sorts of conclusions van Fraassen wants. Upon close examination, the two principles seem to be getting at two quite independent epistemic norms. My thanks to Frank Arntzenius, Barry Loewer, Chris Meacham, John Hawthorne, and an anonymous referee for their helpful discussion and criticism. Special thanks to Bliss Kern for bringing the topic to my attention.     

The Coherence Argument Against Conditionalization

I re-examine Coherence Arguments (Dutch Book Arguments, No Arbitrage Arguments) for diachronic constraints on Bayesian reasoning. I suggest to replace the usual game–theoretic coherence condition with a new decision–theoretic condition ('Diachronic Sure Thing Principle'). The new condition meets a large part of the standard objections against the Coherence Argument and frees it, in particular, from a commitment to additive utilities. It also facilitates the proof of the Converse Dutch Book Theorem. I first apply the improved Coherence Argument to van Fraassen's (1984) Reflection principle. I then point out the failure of a Coherence Argument that is intended to support Conditionalization as a naive, universal, update rule. I also point out that Reflection is incompatible with the universal use of Conditionalization thus interpreted. The Coherence Argument therefore defeats the naive view on Bayesian learning that it was originally designed to justify. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Personhood and future belief: two arguments for something like Reflection

This paper offers two new arguments for a version of Reflection, the principle that says, roughly, that if one knew now what one would believe in the future, one ought to believe it now. The most prominent existing argument for the principle is the coherence-based Dutch Strategy argument advanced by Bas van Fraassen (and others). My two arguments are quite different. The first is a truth-based argument. On the basis of two substantive premises, that people’s beliefs generally get better over time and that being a person requires having knowledge of this fact, it concludes that it is rational to treat your future selves as experts. The second argument is a transcendental one. Being a person requires being able to engage in plans and projects. But these cannot be meaningfully undertaken unless one has Reflection-like expectations about one’s future beliefs. Hence, satisfaction of Reflection is necessary for being a person. Together, the arguments show that satisfaction of Reflection is both rational and necessary for persons.

What is conditionalization,and why should we do it?

Philosophical Studies - Conditionalization is one of the central norms of Bayesian epistemology. But there are a number of competing formulations, and a number of arguments that purport to...     

Holistic Conditionalization and Underminable Perceptual Learning

Seeing a red hat can (i) increase my credence in the hat is red, and (ii) introduce a negative dependence between that proposition and potential undermining defeaters such as the light is red. The rigidity of Jeffrey Conditionalization makes this awkward, as rigidity preserves independence. The picture is less awkward given ‘Holistic Conditionalization’, or so it is claimed. I defend Jeffrey Conditionalization's consistency with underminable perceptual learning and its superiority to Holistic Conditionalization, arguing that the latter is merely a special case of the former, is itself rigid, and is committed to implausible accounts of perceptual confirmation and of undermining defeat.     

On the proper formulation of conditionalization

Synthese - Conditionalization is a norm that governs the rational reallocation of credence. I distinguish between factive and non-factive formulations of Conditionalization. Factive formulations...     

Credence and self-location

All parties to the Sleeping Beauty debate agree that it shows that some cherished principle of rationality has to go. Thirders think that it is Conditionalization and Reflection that must be given up or modified; halfers think that it is the Principal Principle. I offer an analysis of the Sleeping Beauty puzzle that allows us to retain all three principles. In brief, I argue that Sleeping Beauty’s credence in the uncentered proposition that the coin came up heads should be 1/2, but her credence in the centered proposition that the coin came up heads and it is Monday should be 1/3. I trace the source of the earlier mistakes to an unquestioned assumption in the debate, namely that an uncentered proposition is just a special kind of centered proposition. I argue that the falsity of this assumption is the real lesson of the Sleeping Beauty case.     

Dutch Books,Coherence, and Logical Consistency

In this paper I present a new way of understanding Dutch Book Arguments: the idea is that an agent is shown to be incoherent iff (s)he would accept as fair a set of bets that would result in a loss under any interpretation of the claims involved. This draws on a standard definition of logical inconsistency. On this new understanding, the Dutch Book Arguments for the probability axioms go through, but the Dutch Book Argument for Reflection fails. The question of whether we have a Dutch Book Argument for Conditionalization is left open.     

The communicative function of ambiguity in language

We present a general information-theoretic argument that all efficient communication systems will be ambiguous, assuming that context is informative about meaning. We also argue that ambiguity allows for greater ease of processing by permitting efficient linguistic units to be re-used. We test predictions of this theory in English, German, and Dutch. Our results and theoretical analysis suggest that ambiguity is a functional property of language that allows for greater communicative efficiency. This provides theoretical and empirical arguments against recent suggestions that core features of linguistic systems are not designed for communication.     

Artistic Value and Copies of Artworks

In a recent paper, Nicholas Stang argues that (i) artworks are not valuable for their own sake in virtue of their artistic value, (ii) artworks have artistic value in virtue of the final value of the experiences they afford, and (iii) the only appropriate objects of appreciation are worktypes. All of these arguments rest on claims about the artistic value of copies of artworks that provide a radical challenge to the views that many philosophers have about copies. Here I argue that Stang's arguments are unsuccessful. The argument for (i) is mistaken about what one is committed to if one thinks artworks are valuable for their own sake in virtue of their artistic value. The defense of (ii) fails to explain what it is supposed to explain. The argument for (iii) overgeneralizes from one kind of case. Finally, the basic claim Stang makes about the artistic value of copies is false. I defend an alternative view. I conclude by discussing the implications of my arguments for experientialism (thesis (ii)). Reflection on the cases Stang considers, far from leading us to embrace experientialism, in fact reveals problems that experientialists need to confront.     

Diachronic Dutch Books and Evidential Import

A handful of well‐known arguments (the ‘diachronic Dutch book arguments’) rely upon theorems establishing that, in certain circumstances, you are immune from sure monetary loss (you are not ‘diachronically Dutch book‐able’) if and only if you adopt the strategy of conditionalizing (or Jeffrey conditionalizing) on whatever evidence you happen to receive. These theorems require non‐trivial assumptions about which evidence you might acquire—in the case of conditionalization, the assumption is that, if you might learn that e, then it is not the case that you might learn something else that is consistent with e. These assumptions may not be relaxed. When they are, not only will non‐(Jeffrey) conditionalizers be immune from diachronic Dutch bookability, but (Jeffrey) conditionalizers will themselves be diachronically Dutch bookable. I argue: 1) that there are epistemic situations in which these assumptions are violated; 2) that this reveals a conflict between the premise that susceptibility to sure monetary loss is irrational, on the one hand, and the view that rational belief revision is a function of your prior beliefs and the acquired evidence alone, on the other; and 3) that this inconsistency demonstrates that diachronic Dutch book arguments for (Jeffrey) conditionalization are invalid.     

Discounting and conditionalization

When people are asked to judge the strengths of two potential causes of an effect, they often demonstrate discounting--devaluing the strength of a target cause when it is judged in the presence of a strong (relative to a weak) alternative cause. Devaluing the target cause sometimes results from conditionalization--holding alternative causes constant while evaluating the target cause. Yet discounting not attributable to conditionalization also occurs. We sought to dissociate conditionalization and discounting (beyond that accounted for by conditionalization) by having subjects perform either a spatial or a verbal working memory task while learning a causal relation. Conditionalization was disrupted by the verbal task but not the spatial task; however, discounting was disrupted by the spatial task but not the verbal task. Conditionalization and discounting are therefore cognitively dissociable processes in human causal inference.     

A Non-factualist defense of the Reflection principle

Are there plausible synchronic constraints on how a subject thinks of herself extended over time? At first glance, Bas van Fraassen’s principle of Reflection seems to prescribe the sort of epistemic authority one’s future self should be taken by one to have over one’s current epistemic states. (The gist of this principle is that I should now believe what I’m convinced I will believe tomorrow.) There has been a general consensus that, as a principle concerning epistemic authority, Reflection does not apply to epistemically non-ideal agents. I agree with this, but argue here that it misses the point of Reflection. Rather than an epistemic principle concerning reasons for belief, Reflection concerns the semantics of belief avowal. I present a non-factual interpretation of Reflection, argue that the principle provides a constraint on the ways in which one can reflectively endorse one’s future epistemic self, and say something about the logic governing such an interpretation.     

The puzzle of the unmarked clock and the new rational reflection principle

The “puzzle of the unmarked clock” derives from a conflict between the following: (1) a plausible principle of epistemic modesty, and (2) “Rational Reflection”, a principle saying how one’s beliefs about what it is rational to believe constrain the rest of one’s beliefs. An independently motivated improvement to Rational Reflection preserves its spirit while resolving the conflict.     

Polish Migrants in The Hague: Stories of Integration and Attachment

This paper examines the stories of long-term migrants from Poland that have settled in The Hague. Using in-depth interviews to learn about their migration histories, their characteristics, and their choices, much is learned about these Poles that live, work, and have started their families in The Hague. The patterns that emerged are characterized by doubt and hard work. There was little thought of long-term planning and choices were made rather haphazardly. A second finding is that ties with the receiving country are strong and ties with Poland are felt as being just as strong. These Polish migrants in The Hague participate in Dutch society to a high extent, even though contacts with non-migrated Dutch are low. Their integration is not weakened by the strong attachment to Poland or by the lack of contact with non-migrated Dutch. The results suggest that the difference between transnational and settlement migration might be smaller than described by Engbersen et al. (Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 39(6):959–981, 2013). This study sheds light on integration and participation processes within the context of the European Union.     

Variations in selective and nonselective prediction error with the negative dimension of schizotypy

Two human associative-learning experiments investigated the relationship between the negative dimension of schizotypy and selective and nonselective prediction-error learning. Experiment 1 demonstrates that individuals low, but not high, on the introvertive anhedonia dimension of schizotypy demonstrate Kamin blocking, which has been taken to reflect the operation of selective learning (Rescorla & Wagner, 1972). In complement, Experiment 2 demonstrates that individuals high, but not low, on the same dimension demonstrate asymmetrical learning about the components of a compound stimulus that differ in their associative history, which has been suggested to reflect the operation of nonselective learning (Rescorla, 2000). The implications of this double dissociation for understanding the nature of the cognitive deficit in schizophrenia and for theories of learning are considered.     

Bayesian chance

This paper explores how the Bayesian program benefits from allowing for objective chance as well as subjective degree of belief. It applies David Lewis??s Principal Principle and David Christensen??s principle of informed preference to defend Howard Raiffa??s appeal to preferences between reference lotteries and scaling lotteries to represent degrees of belief. It goes on to outline the role of objective lotteries in an application of rationality axioms equivalent to the existence of a utility assignment to represent preferences in Savage??s famous omelet example of a rational choice problem. An example motivating causal decision theory illustrates the need for representing subjunctive dependencies to do justice to intuitive examples where epistemic and causal independence come apart. We argue to extend Lewis??s account of chance as a guide to epistemic probability to include De Finetti??s convergence results. We explore Diachronic Dutch book arguments as illustrating commitments for treating transitions as learning experiences. Finally, we explore implications for Martingale convergence results for motivating commitment to objective chances.