Skip to main content
Log in

Standard Decision Theory Corrected

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Where there are infinitely many possible basic states of the world, a standard probability function must assign zero probability to each state – since any finite probability would sum to over one. This generates problems for any decision theory that appeals to expected utility or related notions. For it leads to the view that a situation in which one wins a million dollars if any of a thousand of the equally probable states is realized has an expected value of zero (since each such state has probability zero). But such a situation dominates the situation in which one wins nothing no matter what (which also has an expected value of zero), and so surely is more desirable. I formulate and defend some principles for evaluating options where standard probability functions cannot strictly represent probability – and in particular for where there is an infinitely spread, uniform distribution of probability. The principles appeal to standard probability functions, but overcome at least some of their limitations in such cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Carnap, R.: 1962, 'The Aim of Inductive Logic', in E. Nagel, P. Suppes and A. Tarski (eds), Logic. Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Finetti, B.: 1972, Probability, Induction, and Statistics, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.: 1986, 'The Axioms of Subjective Probability', Statistical Science 1, 335–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadane, J., Schervish, M. and Seidenfeld, T.: 1986, 'Statistical Implications of Finitely Additive Probability', in P. Goel and A. Zellner (eds), Bayesian Inference and Decision Techniques, North Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keisler, H. J.: 1976, Elementary Calculus, Prindle, Weber & Schmidt, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopman, B. O.: 1940, 'The Axioms and Algebra of Intuitive Probability', Annals of Mathematics, Ser. 2, 41, 269–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, I.: 1980, The Enterprise of Knowledge: An Essay on Knowledge, Credal Possibility, and Chance, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall, S. and Armstrong, D. M.: 1989, 'God's Lottery', Analysis 49, 223–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, A.: 1966, Non-Standard Analysis, North Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L.: 1972, The Foundations of Statisticism, Dover Publications, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidenfeld, T., and Schervish, M.: 1983, 'A Conflict Between Finite Additivity and Avoiding Dutch Book', Philosophy of Science 50, 398–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimony, A.: 1955, 'Coherence and the Axioms of Confirmation', Journal of Symbolic Logic 20, 8–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms, B.: 1995, 'Strict Coherence, Sigma Coherence, and the Metaphysics of Quantity', Philosophical Studies 77, 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallentyne, P. and Kagan, S.: 1997, 'Infinite Utility and Finitely Additive Value Theory', Journal of Philosophy 94, 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vallentyne, P. Standard Decision Theory Corrected. Synthese 122, 261–290 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005247705806

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005247705806

Keywords

Navigation