Abstract
AbstractThe degrees of belief of rational agents should be guided by the evidence available to them. This paper takes as a starting point the view—argued elsewhere—that the formal model best able to capture this idea is one that represents degrees of belief using Dempster–Shafer belief functions. However, degrees of belief should not only respect evidence; they also guide decision and action. Whatever formal model of degrees of belief we adopt, we need a decision theory that works with it: that takes as input degrees of belief so represented. The task of this paper is to develop such a decision theory for the belief function model of degrees of belief. This is not the first paper to attempt that task, but compared to the existing literature it takes a more abstract route to its destination, via a consideration of the very idea of rational decision making in light of one’s beliefs and desires. After presenting the new decision theory and comparing it to existing views, the paper goes on to consider diachronic decision situations.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Computer Science Applications,General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,General Social Sciences,Applied Psychology,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,General Decision Sciences
Reference76 articles.
1. Antoine, A., & Nicole, P. (1996). Logic or the art of thinking: Containing, besides common rules, several new observations appropriate for forming judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Translated and edited by Jill Vance Buroker.
2. Berger, J. O. (1985). Statistical decision theory and Bayesian analysis. New York: Springer.
3. Bewley, T. F. (2002). Knightian decision theory. Part I. Decisions in Economics and Finance, 25:79–110. Originally circulated as Discussion Paper no. 807 of the Cowles Foundation at Yale University, November 1986.
4. Bradley, S. (2019). A counterexample to three imprecise decision theories. Theoria, 85, 18–30.
5. Bradley, S., & Steele, K. (2014). Should subjective probabilities be sharp? Episteme, 11(3), 277–89.