(Sorry if I am missing something basic, but help a brother out you know? I have a job now so I don't have to pretend I know what I am doing any more!)
Show this thread
Is there a Dutch Book argument saying that the agent (to avoid book) must have credences defined for all the propositions in the event space? All DB proofs I know assume as much, and I am worried you would have to make controversial assumptions about one gambles with no credence?
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Yeah the more I think about it the more I think there just can't be. Is there some other subjectivist friendly rationale for no-credence-gaps?
End of conversation
-
-
-
Do you need an assumption that strong, or do you just need that the agent could generate such credences when challenged to do so? I feel like I'd always interpreted the demand in that second way. More defensible that way? (Though I, too, may be missing something very basic!)
-
Yeah I think often the rationale given is to imagine a kind of forced choice scenario thing - but is there any subjectivist proof that they really ought to generate credences over the whole event space even in absense of somebody holding a gun to their head?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.