Mahtani, Anna Dutch books, coherence, and logical consistency. (English) Zbl 1356.03020 Nôus 49, No. 3, 522-537 (2015). Summary: In this paper I present a new way of understanding Dutch Book Arguments: the idea is that an agent is shown to be incoherent iff (s)he would accept as fair a set of bets that would result in a loss under any interpretation of the claims involved. This draws on a standard definition of logical inconsistency. On this new understanding, the Dutch Book Arguments for the probability axioms go through, but the Dutch Book Argument for Reflection fails. The question of whether we have a Dutch Book Argument for Conditionalization is left open. Cited in 1 Document MSC: 03A05 Philosophical and critical aspects of logic and foundations 60A05 Axioms; other general questions in probability 03B48 Probability and inductive logic Keywords:Dutch book arguments; logical inconsistency PDFBibTeX XMLCite \textit{A. Mahtani}, Nôus 49, No. 3, 522--537 (2015; Zbl 1356.03020) Full Text: DOI References: [1] Briggs, Distorted Reflection, Philosophical Review 118 (1) pp 59– (2009) · doi:10.1215/00318108-2008-029 [2] Christensen, Clever Bookies and Coherent Beliefs, Philosophical Review 100 (2) pp 229– (1991) · doi:10.2307/2185301 [3] Etchemendy, The Concept of Logical Consequence (1990) · Zbl 0743.03002 [4] Halbach, The Logic Manual (2010) · Zbl 0519.92019 [5] Lewis , D. 1999 Why Conditionalize Lewis , D. Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology [6] Mahtani, Diachronic Dutch Book Arguments, Philosophical Review 121 (3) pp 443– (2012) · doi:10.1215/00318108-1574445 [7] Milne, A Dilemma for Subjective Bayesians-And How to Resolve It, Philosophical Studies 62 (3) pp 307– (1991) · doi:10.1007/BF00372396 [8] Talbott, Two Principles of Bayesian Epistemology, Philosophical Studies 62 pp 135– (1991) · doi:10.1007/BF00419049 [9] Van Fraassen, Belief and the Will, Journal of Philosophy 81 (5) pp 235– (1984) · doi:10.2307/2026388 This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.