This essay critically discusses the Judy Benjamin problem, a problem in Bayesian belief updating, focusing in particular on the proposed solution due to Douven and Romeijn (2010). We examine their rebuttal of traditional treatments of the problem and their threefold characterisation of their own proposal. The first characterisation is in terms of desiderata, the second in terms of Adams conditioning (see Bradley 2005) and the third in terms of distance-minimisation. Correcting some mathematical mistakes in their paper, we show that the three characterisations are indeed equivalent. We then state some worries concerning the distance-based approach, which by extension cast doubt on the whole project.
How to Cite:
Heesen, R., 2010. For the Wrong Reasons. Rerum Causae, 2(1), pp.43–62.