Conditionalization governs how to reallocate credence in light of new evidence. One prominent argument in favor of Conditionalization holds that an agent who violates it is vulnerable to a diachronic Dutch book: a series of acceptable bets offered at multiple times that inflict a sure loss. van Fraassen argues that an agent who violates the Principle of Reflection is likewise vulnerable to a diachronic Dutch book. He concludes that agents should conform to both Conditionalization and Reflection. Some authors reply that Reflection is implausible and hence that there must be something wrong with diachronic Dutch book arguments. Other authors try to isolate a principled difference between the Dutch book argument for Conditionalization and the Dutch book argument for Reflection, such that the former argument may succeed even though the latter fails. I pursue a version of this strategy. I contend that, once we properly elucidate the notion of sure loss, non-reflectors are not vulnerable to a sure loss. An agent who violates Reflection is not thereby subject to a diachronic Dutch book. Appearances to the contrary result from an unmotivated focus upon an overly narrow set of gambling scenarios.

中文翻译：

---

反思荷兰历时书籍

条件化决定了如何根据新证据重新分配信任。支持条件化的一个重要论点认为，违反条件化的代理人很容易受到一本历时荷兰书的影响：多次提供一系列可接受的赌注，从而造成肯定的损失。范弗拉森认为，违反反射原理的代理人同样容易受到历时性荷兰语书籍的影响。他的结论是，主体应该遵守条件化和反思。一些作者回答说，《反思》令人难以置信，因此荷兰书中历时性的论点一定有问题。其他作者试图找出荷兰书中关于条件化的论证和荷兰书中关于反思的论证之间的原则性差异，使得即使后者失败，前一个论证也可能成功。我追求这个策略的一个版本。我认为，一旦我们正确阐明了确定损失的概念，非反射器不易遭受确定的损失。违反反思的特工不会因此受到历时荷兰书的约束。相反的情况是由于无动机地关注过于狭窄的赌博场景而导致的。