Uncertainty and Control

Article Sidebar

PDF Full text
Published: Oct 4, 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.53.0.1100
Keywords:
uncertainty control agentive uncertainty Newcomb’s paradox death in Damascus

Main Article Content

Sven Ove Hansson
Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Philosophy and History

Abstract

In a decision making context, an agent’s uncertainty can be either epistemic, i.e. due to her lack of knowledge, or agentive, i.e. due to her not having made (full) use of her decision-making power. In cases when it is unclear whether or not a decision maker presently has control over her own future actions, it is difficult to determine whether her uncertainty is epistemic or agentive. Such situations are often difficult for the agent to deal with, but from an outsider’s perspective, they can have sensible pragmatic solutions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Hansson, Sven Ove. 2017. “Uncertainty and Control”. Diametros, no. 53 (October):50-59. https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.53.0.1100.
Issue
No. 53 (2017)
Section
Ethics and Uncertainty

By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.

Author Biography

Sven Ove Hansson, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Philosophy and History

Sven Ove Hansson, ProfessorRoyal Institute of TechnologyDepartment of Philosophy and HistoryBrinellvägen 32114 28 StockholmSweden

E-mail: soh@kth.se

Share |
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

Gibbard A., Harper W.L. (1978/1988), “Counterfactuals and Two Kinds of Expected Utility,” [in:] Decision, Probability, and Utility, P. Gärdenfors, N.-E. Sahlin (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 341–376.
View in Google Scholar

Hansson S.O. (1996), “Decision-Making Under Great Uncertainty,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 26 (3): 369–386.
View in Google Scholar

Hansson S.O. (2013), “Contraction, Revision, Expansion: Representing Belief Change Operations,” [in:] Krister Segerberg on Logic of Actions, R. Trypuz (ed.), Springer, Dordrecht: 135–151.
View in Google Scholar

Hansson S.O. (forthcoming-a), “Decision Structuring for Risky Decisions,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.
View in Google Scholar

Hansson S.O. (forthcoming-b), “The Ethics of Making Patients Responsible,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.
View in Google Scholar

Hansson S.O., Edvardsson Björnberg K., Cantwell J. (2016), “Self-Defeating Goals,” Dialectica 70 (4): 491–512.
View in Google Scholar

Hansson S.O., Hirsch Hadorn G. (2016), “Ten Core Concepts for the Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis,” [in:] The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis. Reasoning about Uncertainty, S.O. Hansson, G. Hirsch Hadorn (eds), Springer, Dordrecht: 347–353.
View in Google Scholar

Knight F.H. (1921/1935), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London.
View in Google Scholar

Langer E.J. (1975), “The Illusion of Control,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (2): 311–328.
View in Google Scholar

Ledwig M. (2005), “The No Probabilities for Acts-Principle,” Synthese 144 (2): 171–180.
View in Google Scholar

Luce R.D., Raiffa H. (1957), Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey, Wiley, New York.
View in Google Scholar

Nozick R. (1969), “Newcomb's problem and two principles of choice,” [in:] Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel, N. Rescher et al. (eds), Reidel, Dordrecht: 114–146.
View in Google Scholar

Rabinowicz W. (2002), “Does Practical Deliberation Crowd Out Self-Prediction?” Erkenntnis 57 (1): 91–122.
View in Google Scholar

Yarritu I., Matute H., Vadillo M.A. (2014), “Illusion of Control. The Role of Personal Involvement,” Experimental Psychology 61 (1): 38–47.
View in Google Scholar