David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Erkenntnis 69 (3):335-349 (2008)
In his Bayesian Nets and Causality, Jon Williamson presents an ‘Objective Bayesian’ interpretation of probability, which he endeavours to distance from the logical interpretation yet associate with the subjective interpretation. In doing so, he suggests that the logical interpretation suffers from severe epistemological problems that do not affect his alternative. In this paper, I present a challenge to his analysis. First, I closely examine the relationship between the logical and ‘Objective Bayesian’ views, and show how, and why, they are highly similar. Second, I argue that the logical interpretation is not manifestly inferior, at least for the reasons that Williamson offers. I suggest that the key difference between the logical and ‘Objective Bayesian’ views is in the domain of the philosophy of logic; and that the genuine disagreement appears to be over Platonism versus nominalism (within weak psychologism).
|Keywords||Philosophy Logic Ethics Ontology Epistemology Philosophy|
|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
John Locke (1995). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford University Press.
Rudolf Carnap (1962). Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago]University of Chicago Press.
Ian Hacking (1995). The Emergence of Probability. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
John Maynard Keynes (1921). A Treatise on Probability. Dover Publications.
Citations of this work BETA
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2010). Evolutionary Epistemology and the Aim of Science. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (2):209-225.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2013). Group Level Interpretations of Probability: New Directions. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 (2):188-203.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2010). Corroboration and Auxiliary Hypotheses: Duhem’s Thesis Revisited. Synthese 177 (1):139-149.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2010). Corroboration and Auxiliary Hypotheses: Duhem's Thesis Revisited. Synthese 177 (1):139-149.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2012). Objective Bayesianism Defended? Metascience 21 (1):193-196.
Similar books and articles
Patrick Maher (2010). Bayesian Probability. Synthese 172 (1):119 - 127.
Jon Williamson (2008). Objective Bayesianism with Predicate Languages. Synthese 163 (3):341 - 356.
J. Ellenberg & E. Sober (2011). Objective Probabilities in Number Theory. Philosophia Mathematica 19 (3):308-322.
Gregory Wheeler & Jon Williamson (2011). Evidential Probability and Objective Bayesian Epistemology. In Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay & Malcolm Forster (eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Statistics. Elsevier
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads107 ( #38,858 of 1,934,701 )
Recent downloads (6 months)27 ( #23,668 of 1,934,701 )
How can I increase my downloads?