Credence and self-location

Peter Lewis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

All parties to the Sleeping Beauty debate agree that it shows that some cherished principle of rationality has to go. Thirders think that it is Conditionalization and Reflection that must be given up or modified; halfers think that it is the Principal Principle. I offer an analysis of the Sleeping Beauty puzzle that allows us to retain all three principles. In brief, I argue that Sleeping Beauty's credence in the uncentered proposition that the coin came up heads should be 1/2, but her credence in the centered proposition that the coin came up heads and it is Monday should be 1/3. I trace the source of the earlier mistakes to an unquestioned assumption in the debate, namely that an uncentered proposition is just a special kind of centered proposition. I argue that the falsity of this assumption is the real lesson of the Sleeping Beauty case.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)369-382
Number of pages14
JournalSynthese
Volume175
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010

Fingerprint

beauty
rationality
Self-location
Sleeping Beauty
Credence
Coins

Keywords

  • Centered proposition
  • Conditionalization
  • Credence
  • Principal principle
  • Reflection
  • Self-location
  • Sleeping beauty
  • Uncentered proposition

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Credence and self-location. / Lewis, Peter.

In: Synthese, Vol. 175, No. 3, 2010, p. 369-382.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lewis, P 2010, 'Credence and self-location', Synthese, vol. 175, no. 3, pp. 369-382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9528-6
Lewis, Peter. / Credence and self-location. In: Synthese. 2010 ; Vol. 175, No. 3. pp. 369-382.
@article{3d3a9bbb1fb34697bdf050d980865ee6,
title = "Credence and self-location",
abstract = "All parties to the Sleeping Beauty debate agree that it shows that some cherished principle of rationality has to go. Thirders think that it is Conditionalization and Reflection that must be given up or modified; halfers think that it is the Principal Principle. I offer an analysis of the Sleeping Beauty puzzle that allows us to retain all three principles. In brief, I argue that Sleeping Beauty's credence in the uncentered proposition that the coin came up heads should be 1/2, but her credence in the centered proposition that the coin came up heads and it is Monday should be 1/3. I trace the source of the earlier mistakes to an unquestioned assumption in the debate, namely that an uncentered proposition is just a special kind of centered proposition. I argue that the falsity of this assumption is the real lesson of the Sleeping Beauty case.",
keywords = "Centered proposition, Conditionalization, Credence, Principal principle, Reflection, Self-location, Sleeping beauty, Uncentered proposition",
author = "Peter Lewis",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1007/s11229-009-9528-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "175",
pages = "369--382",
journal = "Synthese",
issn = "0039-7857",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Credence and self-location

AU - Lewis, Peter

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - All parties to the Sleeping Beauty debate agree that it shows that some cherished principle of rationality has to go. Thirders think that it is Conditionalization and Reflection that must be given up or modified; halfers think that it is the Principal Principle. I offer an analysis of the Sleeping Beauty puzzle that allows us to retain all three principles. In brief, I argue that Sleeping Beauty's credence in the uncentered proposition that the coin came up heads should be 1/2, but her credence in the centered proposition that the coin came up heads and it is Monday should be 1/3. I trace the source of the earlier mistakes to an unquestioned assumption in the debate, namely that an uncentered proposition is just a special kind of centered proposition. I argue that the falsity of this assumption is the real lesson of the Sleeping Beauty case.

AB - All parties to the Sleeping Beauty debate agree that it shows that some cherished principle of rationality has to go. Thirders think that it is Conditionalization and Reflection that must be given up or modified; halfers think that it is the Principal Principle. I offer an analysis of the Sleeping Beauty puzzle that allows us to retain all three principles. In brief, I argue that Sleeping Beauty's credence in the uncentered proposition that the coin came up heads should be 1/2, but her credence in the centered proposition that the coin came up heads and it is Monday should be 1/3. I trace the source of the earlier mistakes to an unquestioned assumption in the debate, namely that an uncentered proposition is just a special kind of centered proposition. I argue that the falsity of this assumption is the real lesson of the Sleeping Beauty case.

KW - Centered proposition

KW - Conditionalization

KW - Credence

KW - Principal principle

KW - Reflection

KW - Self-location

KW - Sleeping beauty

KW - Uncentered proposition

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77955587028&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77955587028&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11229-009-9528-6

DO - 10.1007/s11229-009-9528-6

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:77955587028

VL - 175

SP - 369

EP - 382

JO - Synthese

JF - Synthese

SN - 0039-7857

IS - 3

ER -