Talk:Causal decision theory
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Solomon?
"In this case, evidential decision theory recommends that Solomon abstain from Bathsheba": Solomon is Bathsheba's son... this sentence doesn't make sense. do you mean David? --86.26.20.225 (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Causal decision theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/eganamit/NoCDT.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Questions about the organization of the article
editHey all,
I find the article is a bit strangely organized in some places.
Most importantly, I find it strange that Newcomb's problem is introduced so late. Arguably the CDT/EDT dichotomy can be traced back to the difference in formalisms between the Savage and Jeffrey-Bolker decision theories (which precede Newcomb's problem). But modern discussions of CDT (especially informal ones) typically introduce CDT as the theory that two-boxes in Newcomb's problem. (Right now, "David wants Bathsheba" is the first Newcomb-like scenario in the article, which also seems a bit weird to me. Newcomb's problem is the much more typically discussed case.) The apple story is fine, but why not just say something like "CDT is a flavor of expected utility maximization" with reference to one of the articles on that topic, and then start with the stuff (two-boxing in Newcomb's problem) that is special about CDT in particular?
A more minor thing: Right now the last paragraph in the "counterexamples" section discusses Gödelian incompleteness, issues of reasoning about itself and that CDT leaves open how to do this. Wouldn't this fit better in the "Vagueness" section?