|
Non-Bayesian Decision Theory: Beliefs and Desires as Reasons for Action (Theory and Decision Library A:) | 
| Author: Martin Peterson Publisher: Springer Category: Book
List Price: $139.00 Buy New: $132.05 You Save: $6.95 (5%)
New (9) Used (1) from $132.05
Sales Rank: 1501997
Media: Hardcover Edition: 1 Number Of Items: 1 Pages: 170 Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9 Dimensions (in): 9.3 x 6 x 0.7
ISBN: 1402086989 Dewey Decimal Number: 519.542 EAN: 9781402086984 ASIN: 1402086989
Publication Date: June 23, 2008 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Shipping: International shipping available Condition: Brand New, Perfect Condition, Please allow 4-14 business days for delivery. 100% Money Back Guarantee, Over 1,000,000 customers served.
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
This book aims to present an account of rational choice from a non-Bayesian point of view. Rational agents maximize subjective expected utility, but contrary to what is claimed by Bayesians, the author argues that utility and subjective probability should not be defined in terms of preferences over uncertain prospects. To some extent, the author’s non-Bayesian view gives a modern account of what decision theory could have been like, had decision theorists not entered the Bayesian path discovered by Ramsey, Savage, and Jeffrey. The author argues that traditional Bayesian decision theory is unavailing from an action-guiding perspective. For the deliberating Bayesian agent, the output of decision theory is not a set of preferences over alternative acts - these preferences are on the contrary used as input to the theory. Instead, the output is a (set of) utility function(s) that can be used for describing the agent as an expected utility maximizer, which are of limited normative relevance. On the non-Bayesian view articulated by the author, utility and probability are defined in terms of preferences over certain outcomes. These utility and probability functions are then used for generating preferences over uncertain prospects, which conform to the principle of maximizing expected utility. It is argued that this approach offers more action guidance.
|
|
| Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |