Don't Take Unnecessary Chances!

Synthese 132 (1/2):9 - 26 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The dominant argument for the introduction of propensities or chances as an interpretation of probability depends on the difficulty of accounting for single case probabilities. We argue that in almost all cases, the "single case" application of probability can be accounted for otherwise. "Propensities" are needed only in theoretical contexts, and even there applications of probability need only depend on propensities indirectly.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Don't take unnecessary chances!Henry E. Kyburg - 2002 - Synthese 132 (1-2):9-26.
Some considerations on conditional chances.Paul Humphreys - 2004 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (4):667-680.
Do chances receive equal treatment under the laws? Or: Must chances be probabilities?Marc Lange - 2006 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (2):383-403.
Probabilities, propensities, and chances.Colin Howson - 1984 - Erkenntnis 21 (3):279 - 293.
What chances could not be.Jenann Ismael - 1996 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (1):79-91.
Deterministic chance.Luke Glynn - 2010 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (1):51–80.
David Lewis’s Humean Theory of Objective Chance.Barry Loewer - 2004 - Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1115--25.
Fitness and Propensity’s Annulment?Marshall Abrams - 2007 - Biology and Philosophy 22 (1):115-130.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-05-29

Downloads
28 (#555,203)

6 months
4 (#790,687)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references