The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Justifying Conditionalization: Conditionalization Maximizes Expected Epistemic Utility
Open accessAbstract
According to Bayesian epistemology, the epistemically rational agent updates her beliefs by conditionalization: that is, her posterior subjective probability after taking account of evidence X, pnew, is to be set equal to her prior conditional probability pold(·|X). Bayesians can be challenged to provide a justification for their claim that conditionalization is recommended by rationality—whence the normative force of the injunction to conditionalize? There are several existing justifications for conditionalization, but none directly addresses the idea that conditionalization will be epistemically rational if and only if it can reasonably be expected to lead to epistemically good outcomes. We apply the approach of cognitive decision theory to provide a justification for conditionalization using precisely that idea. We assign epistemic utility functions to epistemically rational agents; an agent’s epistemic utility is to depend both upon the actual state of the world and on the agent’s credence distribution over possible states. We prove that, under independently motivated conditions, conditionalization is the unique updating rule that maximizes expected epistemic utility.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2001) · Empirical Direction in Design and Analysis · doi:10.4324/9781410600004-24 · Cited by 6,808
The Foundations of Statistics.
Good, I. J., & Savage, L. J. (1955) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2343133 · Cited by 4,582
Lindley, D. V., & Savage, L. J. (1973) · The Mathematical Gazette · doi:10.2307/3615588 · Cited by 1,943
Fraassen, B. C. V. (1989) · doi:10.1093/0198248601.001.0001 · Cited by 1,821
van Fraassen, B. C. (1989) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,279
Elicitation of Personal Probabilities and Expectations
Savage, L. J. (1971) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1971.10482346 · Cited by 1,226
Maher, P. (1993) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511527326 · Cited by 450
Horwich, P., & Ayer, A. J. (1973) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2183724 · Cited by 414
On the Principle of Total Evidence
GOOD, I. J. (1967) · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1093/bjps/17.4.319 · Cited by 329
Bonis, A. J. (1976) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1976.10489435 · Cited by 283
Cited by
Accuracy and the Laws of Credence
Pettigrew, R. (2016) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732716.001.0001 · Cited by 473
Accuracy and Coherence: Prospects for an Alethic Epistemology of Partial Belief
Joyce, J. M. (2009) · Synthese Library · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9198-8_11 · Cited by 331
Ten Reasons to Care about the Sleeping Beauty Problem
Titelbaum, M. G. (2013) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12080 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Greaves, H., & Wallace, D.
- Venue
- Mind
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-07-01
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 459
- Pages
- 607-632
- ISSN
- 0026-4423 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2113
- OpenAlex
- W2133020344
- Cited by
- 384
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 16.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Justifying Conditionalization: Conditionalization Maximizes Expected Epistemic Utility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/mind/fzl607
- The paper
- Greaves, H., & Wallace, D. (2006). Justifying Conditionalization: Conditionalization Maximizes Expected Epistemic Utility. Mind. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzl607
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.