When propriety is improper
- 179 Downloads
We argue that philosophers ought to distinguish epistemic decision theory and epistemology, in just the way ordinary decision theory is distinguished from ethics. Once one does this, the internalist arguments that motivate much of epistemic decision theory make sense, given specific interpretations of the formalism (for example, that epistemic utility functions be at least as psychologically real as ordinary utility functions are for decision theory). Making this distinction also causes trouble for the principle called Propriety, which says, roughly, that the only acceptable epistemic utility functions make probabilistically coherent credence functions immodest (expect themselves to be least inaccurate). We cast doubt on this requirement, but then argue that epistemic decision theorists should never have wanted such a strong principle in any case.
KeywordsEpistemic decision theory Propriety Immodesty
Thanks to Sara Aronowitz, Zoë Johnson King, Sarah Moss, Cat Saint Croix, Eric Swanson, an audience at Michigan, and especially Boris Babic, Jim Joyce, and an anonymous referee for this journal. Daniel Drucker also gratefully acknowledges the support of the Postdoctoral Fellow program at UNAM.
- Boutilier, C. (2003). On the foundations of expected expected utility. In Proceedings of the 18th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI’03 (pp. 285–290). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
- Easwaran, K. (2014). Decision theory without representation theorems. Philosophers’ Imprint, 14, 1–30.Google Scholar
- Firth, R. (1998). In defense of radical empiricism: Essays and lectures. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Gauthier, D. (1986). Morals by agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Gibbard, A. (2007). Rational credence and the value of truth. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 4, pp. 143–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Jeffrey, R. (1965). The logic of decision. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. (1980). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. In R. C. Jeffrey (Ed.), Studies in inductive logic and probability (Vol. 2, pp. 263–93). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Railton, P. (1984). Alienation, consequentialism, and the demands of morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 13, 134–171.Google Scholar
- Savage, L. (1972). The foundations of statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
- Williams, B. (1981). Internal and external reasons. In Moral Luck (pp. 101–113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar