Why is it good to be less, rather than more incoherent? Julia Staffel, in her excellent book “Unsettled Thoughts,” answers this question by showing that if your credences are incoherent, then there is some way of nudging them toward coherence that is guaranteed to make them more accurate and reduce the extent to which they are Dutch-bookable. This seems to show that such a nudge toward coherence makes them better fit to play their key epistemic and practical roles: representing the world and guiding action. In this paper, I argue that Staffel’s strategy needs a small tweak. While she identifies appropriate measures of epistemic value, she does not identify appropriate measures of practical value. Staffel measures practical value using Dutchbookability scores. But credences have practical value in virtue of recommending actions that produce as much utility as possible. And while susceptibility to a Dutch book is a surefire sign that one’s credences are needlessly bad at this task, one’s degree of Dutch-bookability is not itself a good measure of how well they recommend practically valuable actions. Strictly proper scoring rules, I argue, are the right tools for measuring both epistemic and practical value. I show that we can rerun Staffel’s strategy swapping in strictly proper scoring rules for Dutch-bookability measures. So long as one’s epistemic scoring rule and practical scoring rule are “sufficiently similar,” there is some way of nudging incoherent credences toward coherence that is guaranteed to yield more of both types of value.

为什么语无伦次比语无伦次更好？Julia Staffel 在她的优秀著作《Unsettled Thoughts》中回答了这个问题，表明如果你的信任不连贯，那么有一些方法可以将它们推向连贯性，这可以保证使它们更准确并减少它们的程度荷兰语可预订。这似乎表明，这种对连贯性的推动使它们更适合发挥其关键的认识和实际作用：代表世界和指导行动。在本文中，我认为 Staffel 的策略需要稍作调整。虽然她确定了认知价值的适当衡量标准，但她没有确定实际价值的适当衡量标准。Staffel 使用 Dutchbookability 分数来衡量实际价值。但是，由于推荐的行动尽可能多地产生效用，因此凭证具有实用价值。虽然对荷兰书的敏感性是一个肯定的迹象，表明一个人的信用在这项任务上不必要地糟糕，但一个人的荷兰语可预订程度本身并不是衡量他们推荐实际有价值的行动的好坏。我认为，严格正确的评分规则是衡量认知价值和实用价值的正确工具。我表明，我们可以重新运行 Staffel 的策略交换，为荷兰式可预订性措施严格适当的评分规则。只要一个人的认知评分规则和实际评分规则“足够相似”，就有某种方法可以将不连贯的信任推向连贯性，从而保证产生更多两种类型的价值。虽然对荷兰书的敏感性是一个肯定的迹象，表明一个人的信用在这项任务上不必要地糟糕，但一个人的荷兰语可预订程度本身并不是衡量他们推荐实际有价值的行动的好坏。我认为，严格正确的评分规则是衡量认知价值和实用价值的正确工具。我表明，我们可以重新运行 Staffel 的策略交换，为荷兰式可预订性措施严格适当的评分规则。只要一个人的认知评分规则和实际评分规则“足够相似”，就有某种方法可以将不连贯的信任推向连贯性，从而保证产生更多两种类型的价值。虽然对荷兰书的敏感性是一个肯定的迹象，表明一个人的信用在这项任务上不必要地糟糕，但一个人的荷兰语可预订程度本身并不是衡量他们推荐实际有价值的行动的好坏。我认为，严格正确的评分规则是衡量认知价值和实用价值的正确工具。我表明，我们可以重新运行 Staffel 的策略交换，为荷兰式可预订性措施严格适当的评分规则。只要一个人的认知评分规则和实际评分规则“足够相似”，就有某种方法可以将不连贯的信任推向连贯性，从而保证产生更多两种类型的价值。一个人的荷兰可预订程度本身并不能很好地衡量他们推荐实际有价值的行动的程度。我认为，严格正确的评分规则是衡量认知价值和实用价值的正确工具。我表明，我们可以重新运行 Staffel 的策略交换，为荷兰式可预订性措施严格适当的评分规则。只要一个人的认知评分规则和实际评分规则“足够相似”，就有某种方法可以将不连贯的信任推向连贯性，从而保证产生更多两种类型的价值。一个人的荷兰可预订程度本身并不能很好地衡量他们推荐实际有价值的行动的程度。我认为，严格正确的评分规则是衡量认知价值和实用价值的正确工具。我表明，我们可以重新运行 Staffel 的策略交换，为荷兰式可预订性措施严格适当的评分规则。只要一个人的认知评分规则和实际评分规则“足够相似”，就有某种方法可以将不连贯的信任推向连贯性，从而保证产生更多两种类型的价值。