Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T12:43:31.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common Causes and Decision Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Ellery Eells and
Elliott Sober
Ellery Eells
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Elliott Sober
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of us (Eells 1982) has defended traditional evidential decision theory against prima facie Newcomb counterexamples by assuming that a common cause forms a conjunctive fork with its joint effects. In this paper, the evidential theory is defended without this assumption. The suggested rationale shows that the theory's assumptions are not about the nature of causality, but about the nature of rational deliberation. These presuppositions are weak enough for the argument to count as a strong justification of the evidential theory.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , June 1986, pp. 223 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association 1986

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

The first author gratefully acknowledges grants from the American Council of Learned Societies and the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the second author is grateful to the latter institution and to the National Science Foundation.

References

Cartwright, N. (1979), “Causal Laws and Effective Strategies”, Noûs 13: 419–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eells, E. (1980), Newcomb's Paradox and the Principle of Maximizing Conditional Expected Utility. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Eells, E. (1982), Rational Decision and Causality. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eells, E. (1984a), “Newcomb's Many Solutions”, Theory and Decision 16: 59–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eells, E. (1984b), “Metatickles and the Dynamics of Deliberation”, Theory and Decision 17: 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eells, E., and Sober, E. (1983), “Probabilistic Causality and the Question of Transitivity”, Philosophy of Science 50: 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1959), Smoking: The Cancer Controversy. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A., and Harper, W. (1978), “Counterfactuals and Two Kinds of Expected Utility”, in Hooker et al. (1978), vol. 1, pp. 123–62. (Reprinted in Harper et al. (1981), pp. 153–90.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, W.; Stalnaker, R.; and Pearce, G. (eds.) (1981), Ifs. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A.; Leach, J. J.; and McClennen, E. F. (eds.) (1978), Foundations and Applications of Decision Theory. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Horwich, P. (n.d.), “Decision Theory in the Light of Newcomb's Problem”, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (1983), The Logic of Decision, Second Edition. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. (First edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.)Google Scholar
Kyburg, H. E., Jr, . (1974), Logical Foundations of Statistical Inference. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyburg, H. E., Jr, . (1980), “Acts and Conditional Probability”, Theory and Decision 12: 149–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1981), “Causal Decision Theory”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59: 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1956), The Direction of Time. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. (1978), “Why Ask ‘Why‘?—An Inquiry Concerning Scientific Explanation”, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 51: 683–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1980), Causal Necessity: A Pragmatic Investigation of the Necessity of Laws. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1984a), “Common Cause Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 51: 212–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. (1984b), The Nature of Selection. Cambridge: The MIT Press/A Bradford Book.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1977), “The Pragmatics of Explanation”, American Philosophical Quarterly 14: 143–50.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar