Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T01:04:14.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2014


There has been much recent interest in imprecise probabilities, models of belief that allow unsharp or fuzzy credence. There have also been some influential criticisms of this position. Here we argue, chiefly against Elga (2010), that subjective probabilities need not be sharp. The key question is whether the imprecise probabilist can make reasonable sequences of decisions. We argue that she can. We outline Elga's argument and clarify the assumptions he makes and the principles of rationality he is implicitly committed to. We argue that these assumptions are too strong and that rational imprecise choice is possible in the absence of these overly strong conditions.

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



Bradley, S. 2012. ‘Dutch book Arguments and Imprecise Probabilities.’ In Dieks, D., González, W. J., Hartmann, S., Stöltzner, M. and Weber, M. (eds), Probabilities, Laws and Structures, pp. 317. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, J. In press. ‘Subjective Probabilities need not be Sharp.’ Erkenntnis.Google Scholar
Elga, A. 2010. ‘Subjective Probabilities should be Sharp.’ Philosophers' Imprint 10.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, J. E. 2010. ‘A Money-pump for Acyclic Intransitive Preferences.’ Dialectica, 64: 251–7.Google Scholar
Paris, J. 2005 [2001]. ‘A Note on the Dutch book Method.’ In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and their Applications, pp. 301–306.Google Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. 1995. ‘To Have One's Cake and Eat it too: Sequential Choice and Expected-utility Violations.’ Journal of Philosophy, 92: 586620.Google Scholar
Sahlin, N.-E. and Weirich, P. 2014. ‘Unsharp Sharpness.’ Theoria, 80: 100–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schick, F. 1986. ‘Dutch Bookies and Money Pumps.’ Journal of Philosophy, 83: 112–19.Google Scholar
Seidenfeld, T. 1994. ‘When Normal and Extensive Form Decisions Differ.’ Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, IX: 451–63.Google Scholar
Seidenfeld, T. 2004. ‘A Contrast between two Decision Rules for use with (Convex) Sets of Probabilities: Γ-maximin versus E-admissibility.’ Synthese, 140: 6988.Google Scholar
Steele, K. 2010. ‘What are the Minimal Requirements of Rational Choice? Arguments from the Sequential Setting.’ Theory and Decision, 68: 463–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. 1990. ‘Figures in a Probability Landscape.’ In Dunn, M. and Segerberg, K. (eds), Truth or Consequences, pp. 345–56. Amsterdam: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar