Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:04:30.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Components of Probabilistic Support: The Two-Proposition Case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

P. T. Landsberg  and
J. Wise
P. T. Landsberg
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mathematical Studies University of Southampton England
J. Wise
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Sciences University of Southampton England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Support functions s(h,e) = p(h|e) – p(h) are widely used in discussion of explanation, causality and, recently, in connection with the possibility or otherwise of probabilistic induction. With this latter application in view, a rather complete analysis of the variety of support functions, their interrelationships and their “non-deductive” and “inductive” components is presented. With the restriction to two propositions, three variable probabilities are enough to discuss such problems. The analysis is illustrated by graphs, a Venn diagram and by using the Laplace Rule of Succession as an illustrative example. It is concluded that within this framework one cannot prove or disprove the possibility of probabilistic induction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 402 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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

REFERENCES

Cartwright, N. (1979), “Causal Laws and Effective Strategies”, Nous 13: 419–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J. M., and Hellman, G. (1986), “Dualling: A Critique of an Argument by Popper and Miller”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37: 220–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, I. J. (1977), “Explicativity: a Mathematical Theory of Exploration with Statistical Applications”, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 354: 303–330.Google Scholar
Good, I. J. (1984), “The Impossibility of Inductive Probability”, Nature 310: 434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howson, C. (1983), “Statistical Explanation and Statistical Support”, Erkenntis 20: 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howson, C. (1984), “Bayesianism and Support by Novel Facts”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 35: 245–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (1984), “The Impossibility of Inductive Probability”, Nature 310: 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I. (1984), “The Impossibility of Inductive Probability”, Nature 310: 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otte, R. (1985), “Probabilistic Causality and Simpson's Paradox”, Philosophy of Science 52: 110–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1963), Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, K., and Miller, D. (1983), “A Proof of the Impossibility of Inductive Probability”, Nature 302: 637–688; (1984) Nature 310: 434; (1985) Nature 315: 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K., and Miller, D. (1987), “Why Probabilistic Support Is Not Inductive”, Philosophical Transactions Royal Society A 321: 569–591.Google Scholar
Redhead, M. L. G. (1985), “On the Possibility of Inductive Probability”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36: 185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. (1945), A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster, p. 674.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1980), Causal Necessity. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Wasserman, G. D. (1984), “On the Nature of Inductive Probabilities”, Methodology of Science 18: 128–129.Google Scholar
Wise, J., and Landsberg, P. T. (1985a), “Has Inductive Probability Been Proved Impossible?” Nature 315: 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, J., and Landsberg, P. T. (1985b), “On the Possibility of Inductive Probability”, Nature 316: 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar