Ackermann, R. J. 1976. The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar

Albert, M. 2007. ‘The Propensity Theory: A Decision-theoretic Restatement’, Synthese 156(3), 587–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bar-Hillel, Y. and Carnap, R. 1953. ‘Semantic Information’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4(14), 145–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bächtold, M. 2006. ‘An Instrumentalist Criticism of Popper’s Propensities’, in Jarvie, I. C., Milford, K. M. and Miller, D. W., eds., Karl Popper. A Centenary Assessment. Volume III: Science. Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 97–104.Google Scholar

BelnapJr., N. D. 2007. ‘Propensities and Probabilities’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38(3), 593–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berkovitz, J. forthcoming. ‘The Propensity Interpretation of Probability: A Re- evaluation’. Erkenntnis.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. 1950. Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2nd edition 1962.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. 1952. The Continuum of Inductive Methods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. 1966. ‘Probability and Content Measure’, in Feyerabend, P. K. and Maxwell, G., eds., Mind, Matter, and Method. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 248–60.Google Scholar

Childers, T. 2013. Philosophy and Probability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Clark, P. J. 1995. ‘Popper on Determinism’, in O’Hear, A., ed., Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 149–62.Google Scholar

Clark, P. J. 2001. ‘Statistical Mechanics and the Propensity Interpretation of Probability’, in Bricmont, J., Dürr, D., Galavotti, M. C., Ghirardi, G., Petruccione, F. and Zanghi, N., eds., Chance in Physics. Berlin: Springer, pp. 271–81.Google Scholar

Coletti, G. and Scozzafava, R. 2002. Probabilistic Logic in a Coherent Setting. Dordrecht, Boston, MA, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

da Costa, N. C. A. and French, S. R. D. 2003. Science and Partial Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delahaye, J.-P. 1994. Information, complexité et hasard. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar

Díez, J. A. 2011. ‘On Popper’s Strong Inductivism (or Strongly Inconsistent Antiinductivism)’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42(1), 105–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drouet, I. 2011. ‘Propensities and Conditional Probabilities’, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 52(2), 153–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drouet, I. and Merlin, F. forthcoming. ‘The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness and the Propensity Interpretation of Probability’, Erkenntnis.Google Scholar

Eagle, A. 2004. ‘Twenty-one Arguments against Propensity Analyses of Probability’, Erkenntnis 60(3), 371–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Erdur, M. 2006. ‘Single Event Probabilities in Popper’s Propensity Account’, in Jarvie, I. C., Milford, K. M. and Miller, D. W., eds., Karl Popper. A Centenary Assessment. Volume III: Science. Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 113–19.Google Scholar

Feller, W. 1968. An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, Volume I. 3rd edition. New York, London and Sydney: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar

Fetzer, J. H. 1974. ‘Statistical Probabilities: Single Case Propensities versus Long Run Frequencies’, in Leinfellner, W. and Köhler, E., eds., Developments in the Methodology of Social Science. Dordrecht, Boston, MA and London: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 387–97.Google Scholar

Fetzer, J. H. 1981. Scientific Knowledge. Causation, Explanation, and Corroboration. Dordrecht, Boston, MA and London: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Field, H. H. 1977. ‘Logic, Meaning, and Conceptual Role’. Journal of Philosophy 74(7), 379–409.Google Scholar

Fine, T. L. 1973 Theories of Probability. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Fitelson, B. 1999. ‘The Plurality of Bayesian Measures of Confirmation and the Problem of Measure Sensitivity’, Philosophy of Science 66(3), 362–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitelson, B. 2006. ‘Induction’, in Sarkar, S. & Pfeifer, J., eds., The Philosophy of Science. An Encyclopedia. Volume 1: A–M. London: Routledge, pp. 384–94.Google Scholar

Fitelson, B. 2007. ‘Likelihoodism, Bayesianism, and Relational Confirmation’, Synthese 156(3), 473–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Galavotti, M. C. 2005. Philosophical Introduction to Probability. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Logic and Information.Google Scholar

Galton, F. 1889. Natural Inheritance. London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar

Giere, R. N. 1973. ‘Objective Single-Case Probabilities and the Foundations of Statistics’, in P. C. Suppes, L. A. Henkin, Gr. C. Moisil and A. Joja, eds., Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, IV. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 467–83.Google Scholar

Gillies, D. A. 1995. ‘Popper’s Contribution to the Philosophy of Probability’, in O’Hear, A., ed., Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 103–20.Google Scholar

Gillies, D. A. 2000. Philosophical Theories of Probability. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Guerrero, P., G. 2004. ‘Interpretación Propensista de Popper de la Probabilidad’, in Rivadulla R., A., ed., Hipótesis y Verdad en Ciencia. Madrid: Facultad de Filosofía de la Universidad Complutense, pp. 165–77.Google Scholar

Hájek, A. 2007. ‘The Reference Class Problem Is Your Problem Too’, Synthese 156(3), 563–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hempel, C. G. 1960. ‘Inductive Inconsistencies’, Synthese 12(4), 439–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, A. and Tarski, A. 1948. ‘Measures in Boolean Algebras’, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 64(3), 467–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hosiasson-Lindenbaum, J. 1940. ‘On Confirmation’, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 5(4), 133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howie, D. 2002. Interpreting Probability. Controversies and Developments in the Early Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howson, C. 1973. ‘Must the Logical Probability of Laws be Zero?’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24(2), 153–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Humphreys, P. W. 1985. ‘Why Propensities Cannot Be Probabilities’, The Philosophical Review XCIV(4), 557–70.Google Scholar

Humphreys, P. W. 2004. ‘Some Considerations on Conditional Chances’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55(4), 667–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Humphreys, P. W. 2005. ‘Probability, Interpretations of’, in Craig, E. J., ed., The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 847–51.Google Scholar

Jeffrey, R. C. 1975a. ‘Probability and Falsification. Critique of the Popper Program’, Synthese 30(1/2), 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jeffrey, R. C. 1975b. ‘Replies’, Synthese 30(1/2), 149–57.Google Scholar

Keuth, H. 2005. The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Keynes, J. M. 1921. A Treatise on Probability. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar

Kneale, W. C. 1949. Probability and Induction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Kolmogorov, A. N. 1933. Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Berlin: Springer. English translation 1950. Foundations of the Theory of Probability. New York: Chelsea Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

KyburgJr., H. E. 1974. ‘Propensities and Probabilities’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25(4), 358–75.Google Scholar

van Lambalgen, M. 1990. ‘The Axiomatization of Randomness’, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 55(3), 1143–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leblanc, H. 1983. ‘Alternatives to Standard First-Order Semantics’, in Gabbay, D. and Gruender, F., eds., Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume I. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 189–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leblanc, H. and van Fraassen, B. C. 1979. ‘On Carnap and Popper Probability Functions’, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 44(3), 369–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leblanc, H. and Roeper, P. 1990. ‘Conditionals and Conditional Probabilities’, in Kyburg, H. E. Jr., Loui, R. P. and Carlson, G. N., eds., Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning. Dordrecht, Boston, MA and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, D. K. 1976. ‘Probabilities of Conditionals and Conditional Probabilities’, The Philosophical Review LXXXV(3), 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, D. K. 1981. ‘A Subjectivist’s Guide to Objective Chance’, in Jeffrey, R. C., ed., Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, Volume II. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 263–93.Google Scholar

Lyon, A. 2014. ‘From Kolmogorov, to Popper, to Rényi: There’s No Escaping Humphreys’ Paradox (When Generalized)’, in Wilson, A., ed., Chance and Temporal Asymmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 112–25.Google Scholar

Maxwell, A. N. 2016. ‘Popper’s Paradoxical Pursuit of Natural Philosophy’, this volume, pp. 170–207.Google Scholar

McCurdy, C. S. I. 1996. ‘Humphreys’ Paradox and the Interpretation of Inverse Conditional Propensities’, Synthese 108(1), 105–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mellor, D. H. 1971. The Matter of Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Michalos, A. C. 1971. The Popper–Carnap Controversy. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, D. W. 1985. ‘La probabilitat des de la Logik der Forschung fins al present’. Enrahonar (Barcelona) 11(1), 13–23. English version contained in chapter 9 of Miller 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, D. W. 1994. Critical Rationalism. A Restatement and Defence. Chicago and La Salle IL: Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Miller, D. W. 1995. ‘Propensities and Indeterminism’, in O’Hear, A., ed., Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 121–47.Google Scholar

Miller, D. W. 2002. ‘Propensities May Satisfy Bayes’s Theorem’, in Swinburne, R. G., ed., Bayes’s Theorem [Proceedings of the British Academy 113]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–16.Google Scholar

Miller, D. W. 2004. ‘How Does Probability Theory Generalize Logic?’, http://www.warwick.ac.uk/go/dwmiller/chuaqui.pdf/.Google Scholar

Miller, D. W. and Popper, K. R. 1986. ‘Deductive Dependence’, Actes IV Congrés Català de Lògica. Barcelona: Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya & Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 21–29.Google Scholar

Miller, R. W. 1975. ‘Propensity: Popper or Peirce?’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 26(2), 123–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mills, S. K. and Beatty, J. H. 1979. ‘The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness’, Philosophy of Science 46(2), 263–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Milne, P. 2005. ‘Conditional Probability, Conditional Events, and Single-case Propensities’, in Hájek, P., Valdés-Villanueva, L. and Westerståhl, D., eds., Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress. London: King’s College Publications, pp. 315–31.Google Scholar

von Mises, R. 1928. Wahrscheinlichkeit, Statistik und Wahrheit. Berlin: Julius Springer. 2nd edition 1951. References are to the 2nd English edition 1957. Probability, Statistics and Truth. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

von Mises, R. 1964. Mathematical Theory of Probability and Statistics. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Mura, A. M. 1990. ‘When Probabilistic Support Is Inductive’, Philosophy of Science 57(2), 278–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mura, A. M. 2008. ‘Can Logical Probability Be Viewed as a Measure of Degrees of Partial Entailment?’, Logic and Philosophy of Science VI(1), 25–33. http://www2.units.it/episteme/L&PS_Vol6No1/Mura_L&PS_Vol6No1.pdf.Google Scholar

Nagel, E. 1939. Principles of the Theory of Probability. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Niemann, H.-J. 2014. Karl Popper and the Two New Secrets of Life. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar

O’Hear, A. 1980. Karl Popper. London, Oxford and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1930–33. See Popper 1979.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1935a. Logik der Forschung. Vienna: Julius Springer Verlag. 2nd edition 1966. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). 10th edition, Popper 1994. English edition, Popper 1959a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1935b. ‘“Induktionslogik” und “Hypothesenwahrscheinlichkeit”’, Erkenntnis 5(2/3), 170–72. English translation in Popper 1959a, appendix *i, §2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1938. ‘A Set of Independent Axioms for Probability’, Mind 47(186), 275–77. Corrections: ibidem 47(187), 415 and 47(188), 552. Reprinted in Popper 1959a, appendix *ii.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1954. ‘Degree of Confirmation’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 5(18), 143–49. Corrections: ibidem 5(20), 334, 359. Reprinted in Popper 1959a, appendix *ix.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1957a. ‘The Propensity Interpretation of the Calculus of Probability, and the Quantum Theory’, in Körner, S., ed., Observation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics, London: Butterworths, pp. 65–70 and 88f. Discussion (including contributions by A. J. Ayer, R. B. Braithwaite, and J.-P. Vigier), ibidem, pp. 78–87. Corrections: The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 8(32), 1958, 301, n. 1.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1957b. ‘A Second Note on Degree of Confirmation’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 7(28), 350–53. Corrections: ibidem 8(32), 294f. Reprinted in Popper 1959a, appendix *ix.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1959a. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson & Co. Expanded English translation of Popper 1935a.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1959b. ‘The Propensity Interpretation of Probability’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10(37), 25–42. Corrections: ibidem 10(38), 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1963a. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 5th edition 1989.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1963b. ‘Creative and Non-Creative Definitions in the Calculus of Probability’, Synthese 15(2), 167–86. Correction: ibidem 21(1), 1970, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1966. Of Clouds and Clocks: An Approach to the Problem of Rationality and the Freedom of Man. St Louis, MO: Washington University Press. Reprinted in Popper 1972, chapter 6.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1967. ‘Quantum Mechanics without “the Observer”’, in Bunge, M. A., ed., Quantum Theory and Reality. Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer, pp. 7–44. Reprinted in Popper 1982b, Introduction, §§1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1972. Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2nd edition 1979.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1973. ‘Indeterminism Is Not Enough’, Encounter 40(4), April, 20–26. Reprinted in Popper 1982a, Addendum I.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1974a. ‘Intellectual Autobiography’, in Schilpp, P. A., ed., The Philosophy of Karl Popper. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Company, pp. 1–181. Reprinted 1976. Unended Quest. London and Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1974b. ‘Replies to My Critics’, in Schilpp, P. A., ed., The Philosophy of Karl Popper. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Company, pp. 961–1197.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1979. Die beiden Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie. Based on manuscripts from 1930–33. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). 3rd edition 2010. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. English translation 2009. The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge. London and New York: Routledge. Cited as Popper 1930–33/1979.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1982a. The Open Universe. Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Volume II. London: Hutchinson & Co. (Publishers) Ltd.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1982b. Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery, Volume III. London: Hutchinson & Co. (Publishers) Ltd.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1983. Realism and the Aim of Science. Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery, Volume I. London: Hutchinson & Co. (Publishers) Ltd.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1990. A World of Propensities. Bristol: Thoemmes.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1994. Logik der Forschung. 10th edition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. and Miller, D. W. 1983. ‘A Proof of the Impossibility of Inductive Probability’, Nature 302(5910), 21 April, 687f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. R. and Miller, D. W. 1987. ‘Why Probabilistic Support Is Not Inductive’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A 321(1562), 30 April, 569–91.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. and Miller, D. W. 1994. ‘Contributions to the Formal Theory of Probability’, in Humphreys, P. W., ed., Patrick Suppes: Scientific Philosopher. Volume I. Probability and Probabilistic Causality. Dordrecht, Boston, MA and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reichenbach, H. 1932. ‘Axiomatik der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung’, Mathematische Zeitschrift 34(1), 568–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reichenbach, H. 1949. The Theory of Probability. An Inquiry into the Logical and Mathematical Foundations of the Calculus of Probability. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, and London: Cambridge University Press. Expanded English translation of Reichenbach, H. 1935. Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre. Eine Untersuchung über die logischen und mathematischen Grundlagen der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Leiden: Sijthoff’s Uitgeversmaatschappij.Google Scholar

Rényi, A. 1955. ‘On a New Axiomatic Theory of Probability’, Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungarica 6(3/4), 285–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robinson, A. 1966. Non-Standard Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Rochefort-Maranda, G. 2004. ‘Probabilité et support inductif. Sur le théorème de Popper–Miller (1983)’, Dialogue 43(3), 499–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rochefort-Maranda, G. and Miller, D. W. 2016. Bibliography of the Popper–Miller Theorem. http://www.warwick.ac.uk/go/dwmiller/pm-bibliography.pdf/.Google Scholar

Roeper, P. and Leblanc, H. 1999. Probability Theory and Probability Semantics. Toronto, Buffalo, NY and London: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Rosenkrantz, R. D. 1977. Inference, Method and Decision. Dordrecht and Boston, MA: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosenthal, J. 2006. ‘Karl Popper’s Propensity Interpretation of Probability’, in Jarvie, I. C., Milford, K. M. and Miller, D. W., eds., Karl Popper. A Centenary Assessment. Volume III: Science. Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 105–12.Google Scholar

Runde, J. 1996. ‘On Popper, Probabilities, and Propensities’, Review of Social Economy LIV(4), 465–85. Reprinted in Fleetwood, S., ed., Critical Realism in Economics. Development and Debate. London: Routledge, pp. 63–82.Google Scholar

Salmon, W. C. 1969. ‘Partial Entailment as a Basis for Inductive Logic’, in Rescher, N., ed., Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 47–82. Reprinted in Salmon, 2005, Reality and Rationality (Dowe, P. and Salmon, M. H., eds.). New York: Oxford University Press, Chapter 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Salmon, W. C. 1975. ‘Confirmation and Relevance’, in Maxwell, G. and Anderson, R. M. Jr., eds., Induction, Probability, and Confirmation. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume VI. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–36. Reprinted in Salmon, 2005, Reality and Rationality (Dowe, P. and Salmon, M. H., eds.). New York: Oxford University Press, Chapter 12.Google Scholar

Salmon, W. C. 1979. ‘Propensities: A Discussion Review’, Erkenntnis 14(2), 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schroeder-Heister, P. 1998. ‘Wahrscheinlichkeit’, in Keuth, H., ed., Logik der Forschung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag GmbH, pp. 185–213. 4th edition 2013, pp. 187–215.Google Scholar

Settle, T. W. 1974. ‘Induction and Probability Unfused’, in Schilpp, P. A., ed., The Philosophy of Karl Popper. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Company, pp. 697–749.Google Scholar

Shearmur, J. F. G. 2006. ‘Karl Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery’, in Shand, J., ed., Central Works of Philosophy 4. The Twentieth Century: Moore to Popper. Chesham: Acumen Publishing Ltd, pp. 262–86.Google Scholar

Spohn, W. 1986. ‘The Representation of Popper Measures’, Topoi 5(1), 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stalnaker, R. C. 1970. ‘Probability and Conditionals’, Philosophy of Science 37(1), 64–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stewart, I. N. 1989. Does God Play Dice? Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.Google Scholar

Strevens, M. 2006. ‘Probability and Chance’, in Borchert, D. M., ed., Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition, Volume 8. Detroit, MI and New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Thomson Gale, pp. 24–40.Google Scholar

Suppes, P. C. 1957. Introduction to Logic. New York: Van Nostrand. Reprinted 1999. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar

Tuomela, R. H. 1973. Theoretical Concepts. Vienna and New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Fraassen, B. C. 1995. ‘Fine-grained Opinion, Probability, and the Logic of Full Belief’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 24(4), 349–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Velupillai, K. V. 2008. ‘Demystifying Induction and Falsification: Trans-Popperian Suggestions’, in Boylan, T. A. and O’Gorman, P. F., eds., Popper and Economic Methodology. Contemporary Challenges. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 143–63.Google Scholar

Ville, J. 1939. Étude critique de la notion de collectif. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.Google Scholar

von Kries, J. 1886. Die Principien der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung: eine logische Untersuchung. Freiburg im Breisgau: Mohr. 2nd edition 1927: Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).Google Scholar

Waismann, F. 1930. ‘Logische Analyse der Wahrscheinlichkeitsbegriff’, Erkenntnis 1(1), pp. 228–48. Page references are to the English translation, ‘A Logical Analysis of the Concept of Probability’, in Waismann, 1977, Philosophical Papers (McGuinness, B. F. ed.). Dordrecht and Boston, MA: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Williams, M. D. 1999. Single Case Probability and the Social World: The Application of Popper’s Propensity Interpretation’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 29(2), pp. 187–201.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. J. J. 1921. ‘Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung’, Annalen der Naturphilosophie 14(3/4), 185–262. English translation 1922. Tractatus Logico- philosophicus. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Newly translated 1961. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Zabell, S. L. 2007. ‘Carnap on Probability and Induction’, in Friedman, M. and Creath, R., eds., The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 273–94. Expanded version: Zabell, 2011. ‘Carnap and the Logic of Inductive Inference’, in Gabbay, D. M., Hartmann, S. and Woods, J., eds., Handbook of the History of Logic. Volume 10: Inductive Logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V., pp. 265–309.Google Scholar