David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Logic 5 (3):321 - 353 (1976)
Even those generally skeptical of propensity interpretations of probability must now grant the following two points. First, the above single-case propensity interpretation meets recognized formal conditions for being a genuine interpretation of probability. Second, this interpretation is not logically reducible to a hypothetical relative frequency interpretation, nor is it only vacuously different from such an interpretation.The main objection to this propensity interpretation must be not that it is too vague or vacuous, but that it is metaphysically too extravagant. It asserts not only that there are physical possibilities in nature, but further that nature itself contains innate tendencies toward these possibilities, tendencies which have the logical structure of probabilities. Thus the basic dispute between advocates of an actualist relative frequency interpretation and a single-case propensity interpretation is not a matter of epistemology, but metaphysics. The frequency theorist wishes to maintain that claims about physical probabilities are nothing more than claims about relative frequencies that will occur in the actual history of the world, be it infinite or no. It is a substantial, though hardly conclusive, argument for the propensity view that the mathematical structures commonly employed in studies of stochastic processes and statistical inference are richer than can be accommodated by a relative frequency interpretation. Whether it is possible to bridge this gap without going beyond an actualist metaphysics remains to be seen.38
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Olimpia Lombardi & Mario Castagnino (2008). A Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 39 (2):380-443.
JEAN-PAUL VESSEL (2008). The Probabilistic Nature of Objective Consequentialism. Theoria 73 (1):46 - 67.
Ellery Eells (1983). Objective Probability Theory Theory. Synthese 57 (3):387 - 442.
Richard N. Burnor (1984). What's the Matter with the Matter of Chance? Philosophical Studies 46 (3):349 - 365.
James H. Fetzer (1981). Probability and Explanation. Synthese 48 (3):371 - 408.
Similar books and articles
Martin Stokhof (2007). Hand or Hammer? On Formal and Natural Languages in Semantics. Journal of Indian Philosophy 35 (5-6):597-626.
M. Albert (2007). The Propensity Theory: A Decision-Theoretic Restatement. Synthese 156 (3):587 - 603.
Howard Smokler (1979). Single-Case Propensities, Modality, and Confirmation. Synthese 40 (3):497 - 506.
Joseph F. Hanna (1981). Single Case Propensities and the Explanation of Particular Events. Synthese 48 (3):409 - 436.
Juan Barba (2007). Formal Semantics in the Age of Pragmatics. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (6):637-668.
Roman Frigg & Carl Hoefer (2007). Probability in GRW Theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 38 (2):371-389.
Henry E. Kyburg (2002). Don't Take Unnecessary Chances! Synthese 132 (1-2):9-26.
Paul Humphreys (2004). Some Considerations on Conditional Chances. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (4):667-680.
Nuel Belnap (2007). Propensities and Probabilities. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 38 (3):593-625.
Henry E. Kyburg Jr (2002). Don't Take Unnecessary Chances! Synthese 132 (1/2):9 - 26.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #125,691 of 1,099,942 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #127,260 of 1,099,942 )
How can I increase my downloads?