I can see how naming them without defining them would throw people off. In my view, it’s acting seemingly irrationally, like getting money pumped, getting Dutch booked or paying to avoid information, that matters, not satisfying Independence or the STP. If you don’t care about this apparently irrational behaviour, then you wouldn’t really have any independent reason to accept Independence or the STP, except maybe that they seem directly intuitive. If I introduced them, that could throw other people off or otherwise take up much more space in an already long post to explain with concrete examples. But footnotes probably would have been good.
Good to hear!
Which argument do you mean? I defined and motivated the axioms for the two impossibility theorems with SD and Impartiality I cite, but I did that after stating the theorems, in the Anti-utilitarian theorems section. (Maybe I should have linked the section in the summary and outline?)
Thanks, this is helpful!
To respond to the points:
I can see how naming them without defining them would throw people off. In my view, it’s acting seemingly irrationally, like getting money pumped, getting Dutch booked or paying to avoid information, that matters, not satisfying Independence or the STP. If you don’t care about this apparently irrational behaviour, then you wouldn’t really have any independent reason to accept Independence or the STP, except maybe that they seem directly intuitive. If I introduced them, that could throw other people off or otherwise take up much more space in an already long post to explain with concrete examples. But footnotes probably would have been good.
Good to hear!
Which argument do you mean? I defined and motivated the axioms for the two impossibility theorems with SD and Impartiality I cite, but I did that after stating the theorems, in the Anti-utilitarian theorems section. (Maybe I should have linked the section in the summary and outline?)