Erkenntnis 69 (3):335-349 (2008)
|Abstract||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||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Patrick Maher (2010). Bayesian Probability. Synthese 172 (1):119 - 127.
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.
J. Ellenberg & E. Sober (2011). Objective Probabilities in Number Theory. Philosophia Mathematica 19 (3):308-322.
Jon Williamson (2008). Objective Bayesianism with Predicate Languages. Synthese 163 (3):341 - 356.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads33 ( #41,931 of 722,836 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,836 )
How can I increase my downloads?