Dutch Strategies for Diachronic Rules: When Believers See the Sure Loss Coming

Two criticisms of Dutch strategy arguments are discussed: One says that the arguments fail because agents who know the arguments can use that knowledge to avoid Dutch strategy vulnerability, even though they violate the norm in question. The second consists of cases alleged to be counterexamples to the norms that Dutch strategy arguments defend. The principle of Reflection and its Dutch strategy argument are discussed, but most attention is given to the rule of Conditionalization and to Jeffrey's rule for fallible learning. I argue that the first criticism should be rejected, and that the second presents no counterexamples to the rationality of commitment to the rules.