Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:59:01.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Probability Kinematics and Causality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Richard Jeffrey
Richard Jeffrey*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
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.

Brian Skynns 's Dynamics of Rational Deliberation (1990) answers questions I have puzzled over for thirty years, and suggests fresh approaches to other questions. Here I want to explore an answer, in Skynns's dynamic terms, to an old question on my agenda concerning Humean (or Kantian, or pragmatic) probabilistic accounts of causal talk:

What features of your judgmental probabilities show that you view truth of one proposition as promoting truth of another, rather than as being promoted by truth of that other, or as being promoted by truth of some third proposition which also promotes truth of the other?

Type
Part XI. The Dynamics of Rational Deliberation
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1992 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1992 , 1993 , pp. 365 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by the Philosophy of Science Association

References

Arntzenius, F.(1990), “Physics and Common Causes”, Synthese 82: 77-96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Hillel, M. and Margalit. A. (1972), “Newcomb's Problem Revisited”, British Journal for Philosophy of Science 23: 295-304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Finetti, B. (1931), “Probabilismo”, Logos 14, pp. 163-219, Napoli. Translation : “Probabilism”, Erkenntnis 31: 169-223, 1989.Google Scholar
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935), “Can Quantum-mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review 47: 777-780.Google Scholar
Gaifman, H. (1988), “A Theory of Higher-order Probability”, in Brian Skyrms and William Harper (eds.), Causality, Chance, and Choice. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. (1965, 1983), The Logic of Decision. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. (1988), “How to Probabilize a Newcomb Problem”, in Probability and Causality, J. H. Fetzer (ed.), pp. 241-251. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, R. (1992), Probability and the Art of Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, R. and Michael Hendrickson (1989), “Probabilizing Pathology”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 89, part 3: 211-225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeds, S. (1984), “Chance, Realism, Quantum Mechanics”, Journal of Philosophy 81: 567-578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, R. (1969), “Newcomb's Problem and Two Principles of Cchoice”, in N. Rescher (ed.), Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Price, H. (1993), ‘The Direction of Causation: Ramsey's ultimate contingency ”, PSA 1992, vol. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer, G. (1981), “Constructive Probability.” Synthese 48: 1-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1980), Causal Necessity. New Haven: Yale.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1984), Pragmatics and Empiricisn. New Haven: Yale.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1990), The Dynamics of Rational Deliberation Cambridge: Harvard.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1968), “A Theory of Conditionals”, in N. Rescher (ed.), Studies in Logical Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 98-112.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1989), Laws and Symmetry. Oxford : Clarenden Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar