Finite additivity, another lottery paradox and conditionalisation

Synthese 191 (5):989-1012 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper I argue that de Finetti provided compelling reasons for rejecting countable additivity. It is ironical therefore that the main argument advanced by Bayesians against following his recommendation is based on the consistency criterion, coherence, he himself developed. I will show that this argument is mistaken. Nevertheless, there remain some counter-intuitive consequences of rejecting countable additivity, and one in particular has all the appearances of a full-blown paradox. I will end by arguing that in fact it is no paradox, and that what it shows is that conditionalisation, often claimed to be integral to the Bayesian canon, has to be rejected as a general rule in a finitely additive environment.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,703

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2025-02-15

Downloads
3 (#1,874,493)

6 months
3 (#1,148,921)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Colin Howson
Last affiliation: London School of Economics

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references