Probability and the Logic of de Finetti's Trievents
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Maria Carla Galavotti (ed.), Bruno de Finetti Radical Probabilist. College Publications 201--242 (2009)
Today philosophical discussion on indicative conditionals is dominated by the so called Lewis Triviality Results, according to which, tehere is no binary connective '-->' (let alone truth-functional) such that the probability of p --> q equals the probability of q conditionally on p, so that P(p --> q)= P(q|p). This tenet, that suggests that conditonals lack truth-values, has been challenged in 1991 by Goodman et al. who show that using a suitable three-valued logic the above equation may be restored. In this paper it is first analysed a long neglected paper by Bruno de Finetti, written in 1935, where the essentials of Goodman's theory was clearly outlined. It is also stressed that de Finetti anticipated Kleene's as well as Bochvar and Blamey ideas. In the second part of the paper it is argued that the de Finetti-Goodman's original theory is defective and leads to absurd results. However, a new semantics, called semantics of hypervaluations, is here defined, that avoids the defects of the original theory. This appears to be a powerful challenge to Lewis Triviality results and to the thesis by which conditionals lack truth-values as well.
|Keywords||de Finetti conditionals Probability of Conditionals tri-events trievents Logic of conditionals|
|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
J. Baratgin, D. Over & G. Politzer (2014). New Psychological Paradigm for Conditionals and General de Finetti Tables. Mind and Language 29 (1):73-84.
Similar books and articles
Daniel Rothschild (2013). Do Indicative Conditionals Express Propositions? Noûs 47 (1):49-68.
Frank Jackson (ed.) (1991). Conditionals. Oxford University Press.
Igor Douven & Sara Verbrugge (2013). The Probabilities of Conditionals Revisited. Cognitive Science 37 (4):711-730.
Charles G. Morgan & Edwin D. Mares (1995). Conditionals, Probability, and Non-Triviality. Journal of Philosophical Logic 24 (5):455-467.
Richard Bradley (2002). Indicative Conditionals. Erkenntnis 56 (3):345-378.
Alan Hájek (2001). Probability, Logic, and Probability Logic. In Lou Goble (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic. Blackwell Publishers 362--384.
Alan Hájek (2012). The Fall of “Adams' Thesis”? Journal of Logic, Language and Information 21 (2):145-161.
Seth Yalcin (2012). A Counterexample to Modus Tollens. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (6):1001-1024.
Patryk Dziurosz-Serafinowicz (2009). Subjective Probability and the Problem of Countable Additivity. Filozofia Nauki 1.
Robert F. Nau (2001). De Finetti Was Right: Probability Does Not Exist. Theory and Decision 51 (2/4):89-124.
Jan von Plato (1989). De Finetti's Earliest Works on the Foundations of Probability. Erkenntnis 31 (2-3):263 - 282.
Gregory Wheeler, Henry E. Kyburg & Choh Man Teng (2007). Conditionals and Consequences. Journal of Applied Logic 5 (4):638-650.
David E. Over & Jonathan St B. T. Evans (2003). The Probability of Conditionals: The Psychological Evidence. Mind and Language 18 (4):340–358.
Richard Bradley (2006). Adams Conditionals and Non-Monotonic Probabilities. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 15 (1-2):65-81.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-10-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?