IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mse/cesdoc/21032.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Categorical versus graded beliefs

Author

Abstract

This essay discusses the difficulty to reconcile two paradigms about beliefs: the binary or categorical paradigm of yes/no beliefs and the probabilistic paradigm of degrees of belief. The possibility for someone to hold both types of belief simultaneously is challenged by the lottery paradox, and more recently by a general impossibility theorem. The nature, relevance and implications of the tension are explained and assessed. A more technical elaboration can be found in Dietrich and List (2018, 2021)

Suggested Citation

  • Franz Dietrich, 2021. "Categorical versus graded beliefs," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 21032, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    • Handle: RePEc:mse:cesdoc:21032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2018. "From degrees of belief to binary beliefs: Lessons from judgment-aggregation theory," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01744085, HAL.
    2. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2019. "The relation between degrees of belief and binary beliefs: A general impossibility theorem," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 19001, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    3. Douven, Igor & Romeijn, Jan-Willem, 2007. "The Discursive Dilemma As A Lottery Paradox," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 301-319, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Minkyung Wang, 2024. "Aggregating individual credences into collective binary beliefs: an impossibility result," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 39-66, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2019. "The relation between degrees of belief and binary beliefs: A general impossibility theorem," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 19001, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    2. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2019. "The relation between degrees of belief and binary beliefs: A general impossibility theorem," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 19001, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    3. Minkyung Wang, 2024. "Aggregating individual credences into collective binary beliefs: an impossibility result," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 39-66, August.
    4. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2014. "From degrees of belief to beliefs: Lessons from judgment-aggregation theory," MPRA Paper 58257, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    logic vs. rational choice theory; yes/no belief vs. subjective probabilities; lottery paradox; general impossibility theorem;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mse:cesdoc:21032. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lucie Label (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cenp1fr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.