Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:51:54.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pragmatic Considerations on Comparative Probability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Thomas F. Icard III
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While pragmatic arguments for numerical probability axioms have received much attention, justifications for axioms of qualitative probability have been less discussed. We offer an argument for the requirement that an agent’s qualitative (comparative) judgments be probabilistically representable, inspired by, but importantly different from, the Money Pump argument for transitivity of preference and Dutch book arguments for quantitative coherence. The argument is supported by a theorem, to the effect that a subject is systematically susceptible to dominance given her preferred acts, if and only if the subject’s comparative judgments preclude representation by a standard probability measure (or set of such measures).

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 83 , Issue 3 , July 2016 , pp. 348 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to acknowledge the journal reviewers for helpful and attentive remarks and questions. Thanks also to Wes Holliday and Shane Steinert-Threlkeld for useful comments on an earlier version and to audiences at Indiana University and University of Maryland. Finally, thanks especially to Teddy Seidenfeld for formative discussions during the writing of this article, including the valuable suggestion to invoke Pearce’s lemma in service of the main result.

References

Blackwell, D., and Girschick, M.. 1954. Theory of Games and Statistical Decisions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. E. 2009. “Intention, Belief, Practical, Theoretical.” In Spheres of Reason: New Essays in the Philosophy of Normativity, ed. Robertson, S.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D., McKinsey, J. C. C., and Suppes, P.. 1955. “Outlines of a Formal Theory of Value I.” Philosophy of Science 22:140–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Finetti, B. 1937. “La prévision: Ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives.” Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré 7:1–68.Google Scholar
de Finetti, B. 1974. Theory of Probability. Vol. 1. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ellsberg, D. 1961. “Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 75 (4): 643–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, T. L. 1973. Theories of Probability. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fishburn, P. C. 1986. “The Axioms of Subjective Probability.” Statistical Science 1 (3): 335–58.Google Scholar
Fitelson, B., and McCarthy, D.. 2014. “Toward an Epistemic Foundation for Comparative Confidence.” Unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University and University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, J. E. 2013. “The Irrelevance of the Diachronic Money-Pump Argument for Acyclicity.” Journal of Philosophy 110 (8): 460–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hájek, A. 2008. “Dutch Book Arguments.” In The Oxford Handbook of Rational and Social Choice, ed. Anand, P., Pattanaik, P., and Puppe, C.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaynes, E. T. 2003. Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. 1965. The Logic of Decision. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. M. 1998. “A Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism.” Philosophy of Science 65:575–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. M. 1921. A Treatise on Probability. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Koopman, B. O. 1940. “The Axioms and Algebra of Intuitive Probability.” Annals of Mathematics 41 (2): 269–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraft, C. H., Pratt, J. W., and Seidenberg, A.. 1959. “Intuitive Probability on Finite Sets.” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 30 (2): 408–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., and Tversky, A.. 1971. Foundations of Measurement. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Levi, I. 1980. The Enterprise of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maher, P. 1993. Betting on Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClennen, E. F. 1990. Rationality and Dynamic Choice: Foundational Explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narens, L. 1974. “Minimal Conditions for Additive Conjoint Measurement and Qualitative Probability.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 11:404–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, D. 1984. “Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection.” Econometrica 52:1029–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, A. P. 2014. “Comparative Expectations.” Studia Logica 102:811–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raiffa, H. 1961. “Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms: Comment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 75 (4): 690–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. 1926. “Truth and Probability.” In Foundations of Mathematics and Other Essays, ed. Braithwaite, R. B.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Savage, L. J. 1954/1954. Foundations of Statistics. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Schervish, M. J., Seidenfeld, T., and Kadane, J. B.. 2009. “Proper Scoring Rules, Dominated Forecasts, and Coherence.” Decision Analysis 6 (4): 202–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schick, F. 1986. “Dutch Bookies and Money Pumps.” Journal of Philosophy 83:112–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D. 1964. “Measurement Structures and Linear Inequalities.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1:233–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenfeld, T., Schervish, M. J., and Kadane, J. B.. 1990. “Decisions without Ordering.” In Acting and Reflecting, ed. Sieg, W.. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Smith, C. A. B. 1961. “Consistency in Statistical Inference and Decision.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 23:1–37.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. D. 2000. The Possibility of Practical Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walley, P. 1991. Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar