Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:50:05.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Probabilistic Reasoning in Expert Systems Reconstructed in Probability Semantics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Roger M. Cooke
Roger M. Cooke*
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Probabilistic reasoning is traditionally represented by inferences of the following form (also called probabilistic explanations):

where A and B are one-place predicates in a first order language, P(A | B) is the conditional probability of observing A among individuals having property B, and q is close to one.

This argument is not logically valid, as the premises may be true while the conclusion is false. Moreover, as it stands, the premises do not even make the conclusion plausible. It may be the case that 90% of the population dies before the age of 85, and that individual j is a member of the population, but this in itself does not make it plausible that individual j will die before the age of 85.

Type
Part VII. Probability And Causality
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 409 - 421
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1986

References

Adams, J.B. (1976). “Probability Model of Medical Reasoning and the MYCIN Model.” Mathematical Biosciences 32: 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, B. and Shortliffe, E. (1975). “A Model of Inexact Reasoning in Medicine.” Mathematical Biosciences 23: 351–379.Google Scholar
Buchanan, B. and Shortliffe, E. (1984). Rule-Based Expert Systems. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Cooke, R.M. (1981). “A Paradox in Hempel’s Criterion of Maximal Specificity.” Philosophy of Science 48: 327–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, J. and Shortliffe, E (1984). “The Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence.” In Buchanan and Shortliffe (1984).Google Scholar
Hempel, C. (1968). “Maximal Specificity and Lawlikeness in Probabilistic Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 35: 116–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, J. (1963). “Semantic Representation of the Probability of Formulas in Formalized Theories.” Studia Loika 14: 183–196.Google Scholar
O’Shea, T. and Eisenstadt, M. (1984). Artificial Intelligence: Tools. Techniques and Applications New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Spiegelhalter, D. and Knill-Jones, R. (1984). “Statistical and Knowledge-based Approaches to Clinical Decision-support Systems, with an Application in Gastroenterology.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A 147: 35–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Melle, W. Scott, A. Bennett, J. and Peairs, M (1981).The Manual Rep. HPP-81-16. Stanford University, Computer Science Department.Google Scholar
Yu, V. Fagan, L. Wraith, S. Clancey, W. Scott, A. Hannigan, J Blum, R. Buchanan, B. and Cohen, S. (1979). “Antimicrobial Selection by a Computer: a blinded evaluation by infectious disease experts.” Journal American Medical Association 242: 1279–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar