I actually also think the post makes some good points. I think arguing against completeness is a pretty good thing to do, and an approach with a long history of people thinking about the theory of rational agents. I feel like this particular posts’s arguments against completeness are not amazing, but they seem like a decent contribution. I just wish it didn’t have all the other stuff on how “everyone who ever referenced ‘coherence theorems’ is making a mistake”.
But I do want to insist on the first thing too. Reserve the term ‘coherence theorems’ for whatever you like. The fact remains. Anyone who claims that:
There exist theorems which state that, unless an agent can be represented as maximizing expected utility, that agent is liable to pursue strategies that are dominated by some other available strategy
is making a mistake.
And anyone who claims that:
VNM/Savage/Bolker-Jeffrey/Dutch Books/Cox’s Theorem/the Complete Class Theorem is such a theorem
is making a mistake that could have been avoided by looking up what those theorems actually say.
I actually also think the post makes some good points. I think arguing against completeness is a pretty good thing to do, and an approach with a long history of people thinking about the theory of rational agents. I feel like this particular posts’s arguments against completeness are not amazing, but they seem like a decent contribution. I just wish it didn’t have all the other stuff on how “everyone who ever referenced ‘coherence theorems’ is making a mistake”.
Thanks. I appreciate that.
But I do want to insist on the first thing too. Reserve the term ‘coherence theorems’ for whatever you like. The fact remains. Anyone who claims that:
There exist theorems which state that, unless an agent can be represented as maximizing expected utility, that agent is liable to pursue strategies that are dominated by some other available strategy
is making a mistake.
And anyone who claims that:
VNM/Savage/Bolker-Jeffrey/Dutch Books/Cox’s Theorem/the Complete Class Theorem is such a theorem
is making a mistake that could have been avoided by looking up what those theorems actually say.