You misunderstand me (and I apologize for that. I now think I should have made this clear in the post). I’m arguing against the following weak claim:
For any agent who cannot be represented as maximizing expected utility, there is at least some situation in which that agent will pursue a dominated strategy.
And my argument is:
There are no theorems which state or imply that claim. VNM doesn’t, Savage doesn’t, Bolker-Jeffrey doesn’t, Dutch Books don’t, Cox doesn’t, Complete Class doesn’t.
Money-pump arguments for the claim are not particularly convincing (for the reasons that I give in the post).
‘The relevant situations may not arise’ is a different objection. It’s not the one that I’m making.
You misunderstand me (and I apologize for that. I now think I should have made this clear in the post). I’m arguing against the following weak claim:
For any agent who cannot be represented as maximizing expected utility, there is at least some situation in which that agent will pursue a dominated strategy.
And my argument is:
There are no theorems which state or imply that claim. VNM doesn’t, Savage doesn’t, Bolker-Jeffrey doesn’t, Dutch Books don’t, Cox doesn’t, Complete Class doesn’t.
Money-pump arguments for the claim are not particularly convincing (for the reasons that I give in the post).
‘The relevant situations may not arise’ is a different objection. It’s not the one that I’m making.