ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT At the heart of the Bayesianism is a rule, Conditionalization, which tells us how to update our beliefs. Typical formulations of this rule are underspecifi ed. This paper considers how, exactly, this rule should be formulated. It focuses on three issues: when a subject’s evidence is received, whether the rule prescribes sequential or interval updates, and whether the rule is narrow or wide scope. After examining these issues, it argues that there are two distinct and equally viable versions of Conditionalization to choose from. And which version we choose has interesting ramifi cations, bearing on issues such as whether Conditionalization can handle continuous evidence, and whether Jeff rey Conditionalization is really a generalization of Conditionalization.
