Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T05:33:51.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Logic, Probability, and Coherence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

John M. Vickers
John M. Vickers*
Affiliation:
Claremont Graduate University
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, Claremont Graduate University, 736 North College Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711; email: John.Vickers@cgu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How does deductive logic constrain probability? This question is difficult for subjectivistic approaches, according to which probability is just strength of (prudent) partial belief, for this presumes logical omniscience. This paper proposes that the way in which probability lies always between possibility and necessity can be made precise by exploiting a minor theorem of de Finetti: In any finite set of propositions the expected number of truths is the sum of the probabilities over the set. This is generalized to apply to denumerable languages. It entails that the sum of probabilities can neither exceed nor be exceeded by the cardinalities of all consistent and closed (within the set) subsets. In general any numerical function on sentences is said to be logically coherent if it satisfies this condition. Logical coherence allows the relativization of necessity: A function p on a language is coherent with respect to the concept T of necessity iff there is no set of sentences on which the sum of p exceeds or is exceeded by the cardinality of every T-consistent and T-closed (within the set) subset of the set. Coherence is easily applied as well to sets on which the sum of p does not converge.

Probability should also be relativized by necessity: A T-probability assigns one to every T-necessary sentence and is additive over disjunctions of pairwise T-incompatible sentences. Logical T-coherence is then equivalent to T-probability: All and only T-coherent functions are T-probabilities.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 95 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by 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.)

References

Amer, Mohamed A. (1985a), “Classification of Boolean Algebras of Logic and Probabilities Defined on them by Classical Models”, Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 32: 509–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amer, Mohamed A. (1985b), “Extension of Relatively σ-additive Probabilities on Boolean Algebras of Logic”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 589–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf (1950), The Logical Foundations of Probability, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
De Finetti, Bruno ([1937] 1964), “Foresight: Its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources”. Translated by Henry Kyburg in Kyburg, Henry and Smokier, Howard (eds.), Studies in Subjective Probability, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Originally published as “La prévision: ses lois logique, ses sources subjectives”, Annales de L'Institut Henri Poincaré 7: 1–68.Google Scholar
De Finetti, Bruno ([1970]1970), Theory of Probability: A Critical Introductory Treatment. Translated by Antonio Machi and Adrian Smith. Originally published as Teoria della probobilità: Sintesi introduttiva con appendice critica. New York and London: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald (1973), “Radical Interpretation”, Dialectica 27: 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Terrence (1973), Theories of Probability. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, Peter and Sahlin, Nils-Eric (eds.) (1988), Decision, Probability, and Utility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, Geoffrey (1997), “Bayes and Beyond”, Philosophy of Science 64: 191–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David ([1739, 1740] 1888), A Treatise of Human Nature, Selby-Bigge, L.A. (ed.) Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, Richard C. (1983), The Logic of Decision, 2d ed. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, Richard (1992), Probability and the Art of Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, James M. (1998), “A Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism”, Philosophy of Science 65: 575–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, Patrick (1993), Betting on Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, Patrick (1997), “Depragmatized Dutch Book Arguments”, Philosophy of Science 64: 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Charles G. and Leblanc, Hugues (1983), “Probability Theory, Intuitionism, Semantics, and the Dutch Book Argument”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 24: 289–304.Google Scholar
Morgan, Charles G. and Mares, Edwin D. (1995), “Conditionals, Probability, and Non-Triviality”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 24: 455–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Frank P. (1931a), “Truth and Probability”, in Foundations of Mathematics and Other Essays, R. B. Braithwaite (ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Frank P. (1931b), “General Propositions and Causality”, in Foundations of Mathematics and Other Essays, R. B. Braithwaite (ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans (1971), The Theory of Probability: An Inquiry into the Logical and Mathematical Foundations of the Calculus of Probability, 2d ed. Translated by Ernest H. Hutten and Maria Reichenbach. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Savage, Leonard J. (1954), The Foundations of Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Shoenfield, Joseph R. (1967), Mathematical Logic. Boston: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Skyrms, Brian (1984), Pragmatics and Empiricism. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert (1984), Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stich, Stephen T. (1983), From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stich, Stephen T. (1990), The Fragmentation of Reason. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tarski, Alfred (1956), “Foundations of The Calculus of Systems”, in Logic, Semantics, and Metamathematics. Edited and translated by J. H. Woodger. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 342–383Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas (1981a), “Probabilistic Semantics Objectified I: Postulates and Logics”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 10: 371–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas (1981b), “Probabilistic Semantics Objectified II: Implication in Probabilistic Model Sets”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 10: 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickers, John M. (1988), Chance and Structure: An Essay in The Logical Foundations of Probability. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar