The central question of this paper is whether a rational agent under uncertainty can exhibit ambiguity aversion (AA). The answer to this question depends on the way the agent forms her probabilistic beliefs: classical Bayesianism (CB) vs modern Bayesianism (MB). We revisit Schmeidler's coin-based example and show that a rational MB agent operating in the context of a "small world", cannot exhibit AA. Hence we argue that the motivation of AA based on Schmeidler's coin-based and Ellsberg's classic urn-based examples, is poor, since they correspond to cases of "small worlds". We also argue that MB, not only avoids AA, but also proves to be normatively superior to CB because an MB agent (i) avoids logical inconsistencies akin to the relation between her subjective probability and objective chance, (ii) resolves the problem of "old evidence" and (iii) allows psychological detachment from actual evidence, hence avoiding the problem of "cognitive dissonance". As far as AA is concerned, we claim that it may be thought of as a (potential) property of large worlds, because in such worlds MB is likely to be infeasible.
Keywords: ambiguity aversion; classical bayesianism; modern bayesianism; small worlds; uncertainty.
Copyright: © 2021 Pittis N et al.