The title “There are no coherence theorems” seems click-baity to me, when the claim relies on a very particular definition “coherence theorem”. My thought upon reading the title (before reading the post) was something like “surely, VNM would count as a coherence theorem”. I am also a bit bothered by the confident assertions that there are no coherence theorems in the Conclusion and Bottom-lines for similar reason.
My use of the term matches common usage. See the Appendix.
‘There are no 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’ would have been too long for a title.
I (reasonably, in my view) didn’t expect anyone to interpret me as denying the existence of the VNM Theorem, Savage’s Theorem, Bolker-Jeffrey, etc.
In any case, I explain how I’m using the term ‘coherence theorems’ in the second sentence of the post.
The title “There are no coherence theorems” seems click-baity to me, when the claim relies on a very particular definition “coherence theorem”. My thought upon reading the title (before reading the post) was something like “surely, VNM would count as a coherence theorem”. I am also a bit bothered by the confident assertions that there are no coherence theorems in the Conclusion and Bottom-lines for similar reason.
Fair enough. I don’t think it’s click-baity:
My use of the term matches common usage. See the Appendix.
‘There are no 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’ would have been too long for a title.
I (reasonably, in my view) didn’t expect anyone to interpret me as denying the existence of the VNM Theorem, Savage’s Theorem, Bolker-Jeffrey, etc.
In any case, I explain how I’m using the term ‘coherence theorems’ in the second sentence of the post.