Zoom Talk: Ben Eva (Konstanz)
Please contact email@example.com for the password.
In this paper, I'm going to develop a new perspective on the norms of diachronic rationality. Unlike existing approaches, which focus on how we should change either our qualitative beliefs or numerical credences over time, this approach is articulated in terms of what I call 'comparative confidence judgements', i.e. judgements of the form 'I am at least as confident in p as I am in q'. To date, there has been no attempt to systematically address the question of how rational agents should change their comparative confidence judgements over time as they gather new evidence. This paper fills this lacuna by identifying, characterising and evaluating an intuitively compelling learning rule that specifies how agents should revise their comparative confidence judgements in the face of novel evidence.