No abstract

Epistemic decision theorists aim to justify Bayesian norms by arguing that these norms further the goal of epistemic accuracy—having beliefs that are as close as possible to the truth. The standard defense of Probabilism appeals to accuracy dominance: for every belief state that violates the probability calculus, there is some probabilistic belief state that is more accurate, come what may. The standard defense of Conditionalization, on the other hand, appeals to expected accuracy: before the evidence is in, one should expect to do better by conditionalizing than by following any other rule. We present a new argument for Conditionalization that appeals to accuracy‐dominance, rather than expected accuracy. Our argument suggests that Conditionalization is a rule of coherence: plans that conflict with Conditionalization don't just prescribe bad responses to the evidence; they also give rise to inconsistent attitudes.

Recent times have been very much focussed on the future. The election of Barack Obama in America was accompanied by a wave of optimism. The Global Financial Crisis and the challenge of Climate Change cause many to descend into pessimism. It is not whether our glass is half-empty or half-full that we worry about, but whether it will be empty or full. As philosophers, naturally, we want to illuminate such concerns, so that we might understand them better and subject them to rational scrutiny.According to the Growing-Block view of time, most famously put forward by C.D. Broad [1923], the flow of time consists in events coming into existence, so that past things and events are real, while future things and events are not. While the Growing-Block view is often considered intuitively appealing, some are concerned it has little to say about the future it denies the existence of. We show how Growing-Block theorists can assign meaningful, mind-independent truth conditions to sentences about the future. Introducing the Growing Block TheoryAsymmetries between past and future abound. The past, many of us think, is fixed and determinate; the future is open and indeterminate. The arrows of time and causation point from past to future, not from future to past.The Growing-Block view explains the difference between the fixed past and the open future in terms of ontological commitment: the view is committed to the (tenseless) existence of past objects and events, but not to the (tenseless) existence of future objects or events. It treats the present like the past, not like the future: present things are the last things the Growing-Block theory takes seriously.The commitments of the Growing-Block theory change-or more precisely, increase-as time passes. Though the Growing-Block theory takes only the past and present seriously, it holds that in time, there will be more to the past and present, because more will have happened, even though the events

It is a platitude among decision theorists that agents should choose their actions so as to maximize expected value. But exactly how to define expected value is contentious. Evidential decision theory (henceforth EDT), causal decision theory (henceforth CDT), and a theory proposed by Ralph Wedgwood that I will call benchmark theory (BT) all advise agents to maximize different types of expected value. Consequently, their verdicts sometimes conflict. In certain famous cases of conflict-medical Newcomb problems-CDT and BT seem to get things right, while EDT seems to get things wrong. In other cases of conflict, including some recent examples suggested by Egan 2007, EDT and BT seem to get things right, while CDT seems to get things wrong. In still other cases, EDT and CDT seem to get things right, while BT gets things wrong.It's no accident, I claim, that all three decision theories are subject to counterexamples. Decision rules can be reinterpreted as voting rules, where the voters are the agent's possible future selves. The problematic examples have the structure of voting paradoxes. Just as voting paradoxes show that no voting rule can do everything we want, decision-theoretic paradoxes show that no decision rule can do everything we want. Luckily, the so-called "tickle defense" establishes that EDT, CDT, and BT will do everything we want in a wide range of situations. Most decision situations, I thank Dan Greco, Caspar Hare, Brian Hedden, Vann McGee, and an anonymous reviewer at the Philosophical Review for their helpful comments.

No abstract