東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁 到查詢結果 [ subject:"Philosophy of Science." ]

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

A critical examination of the three ...

Secchi, Luigi A.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

A critical examination of the three main interpretations of probability.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	A critical examination of the three main interpretations of probability./
作者:	Secchi, Luigi A.
面頁冊數:	145 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-09, Section: A, page: 3298.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International71-09A.
標題:	Logic. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3418165
ISBN:	9781124162089

A critical examination of the three main interpretations of probability.
Secchi, Luigi A.

A critical examination of the three main interpretations of probability. - 145 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-09, Section: A, page: 3298.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Southern California, 2010.

The three main interpretations of probability (i.e. of probability-statements) are the classical/logical, the subjectivist and the relative-frequency.

ISBN: 9781124162089Subjects--Topical Terms:

529544
Logic.

A critical examination of the three main interpretations of probability.
LDR:06140nam 2200397 4500 001 1394594
005 20110429092903.5
008 130515s2010 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781124162089
035 $a (UMI)AAI3418165
035 $a AAI3418165
040 $a UMI $c UMI
100 1 $a Secchi, Luigi A. $3 1673225
245 1 2 $a A critical examination of the three main interpretations of probability.
300 $a 145 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-09, Section: A, page: 3298.
500 $a Adviser: Zlatan Damnjanovic.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Southern California, 2010.
520 $a The three main interpretations of probability (i.e. of probability-statements) are the classical/logical, the subjectivist and the relative-frequency.
520 $a The core tenet of the classical interpretation is that whenever a set of outcomes of an event is such that (a) no information is available about any of the outcomes or (b) symmetrical information is available about each outcome, then each outcome must have the same probability. This is usually known as the Principle of Indifference. The logical interpretation---which descends directly from the classical interpretation---differs from the classical interpretation in that: (i) outcomes of the same event may be assigned unequal probabilities and (ii) probability is a logical relation between two complex propositions e and k (k is the information relevant to the occurrence of e). I discuss the classical and the logical interpretations in chapter 1.
520 $a Nowadays, the classical interpretation is not held in high consideration. The accepted view is that the principle of indifference, the core of this interpretation, faces, in certain infinite domains, a devastating paradox. In my dissertation, I contend that this is not the case.
520 $a But the classical interpretation is not unproblematic in general. Moreover the classical interpretation is affected by the very same two problems that affect the logical interpretation. First, both the classical and the logical interpretations presuppose Kolmogorov's axioms of probability (or an equivalent axiomatization). Without Kolmogorov's axioms, an outcome cannot be assigned a unique probability in principle and it is impossible to establish a probabilistic hierarchy between sets of outcomes. The problem is that it is not at all clear how to justify such a presupposition. The second problem is that neither the classical nor the logical interpretation can provide an adequate explication of probability.
520 $a The subjectivist interpretation (subjectivism) identifies probabilities with the numerically formulated degrees of beliefs of individual agents. Subjectivism is the object of chapter II. A large part of the appeal of this interpretation is due to the alleged fact that numerical degrees of beliefs must satisfy the axioms of Probability Theory (Kolmogorov's axioms) on pain of irrationality. This (alleged) fact is said to be the consequence of either of two arguments, the Dutch Book Argument and an argument from representation theorems, the Representation Theorems Argument. I show (in the first part of the chapter) that both the Dutch Book Argument and the Representation Theorems Argument are flawed. The second part of the chapter is devoted to Bayesian Confirmation Theory (BCT), a subjectivist doctrine according to which one's (numerical) degrees of belief should be updated strictly by way of a probabilistic equation called Bayes' Theorem. The main claim (and the whole point) of BCT is that if certain (allegedly mild) conditions are respected then probabilistic induction is possible and perfectly justified. I argue that this claim is in fact false. Firstly, I reconstruct Popper's famous criticism of BCT qua justification of probabilistic induction. Popper pointed out that the conditions under which BCT allows probabilistic induction are anything but mild, and in fact one of these conditions presuppose induction to begin with. I address several objections that have been made against his argument. Secondly, I present a new, improved version of Popper's original argument. Thirdly, I present a novel argument to the effect that BCT cannot provide a genuine justification of probabilistic induction.
520 $a The relative-frequency interpretation (frequentism) asserts that the probability of an outcome is its frequency of occurrence (relative frequency). Historically, frequentism has come in two variants: finite frequentism---a relative frequency is computed on the basis of a finite sequence of instances (occurrences and non-occurrences) of an outcome---and infinite frequentism---the sequence of instances of an outcome must be infinite. However, the vast majority of the proponents of frequentism (frequentists) have endorsed infinite frequentism. I discuss frequentism in Chapter 3.
520 $a Since within infinite frequentism probability-values are not logically falsifiable and since there are reasons why dealing with infinitely many instances of an outcome is undesirable, I present a new (as far as I know) form of frequentism. This new version of frequentism, I argue, has all the advantages of infinite frequentism, but lacks those two drawbacks.
520 $a Lastly, let me briefly anticipate the conclusion I reach in my dissertation. Of the three main interpretations of Probability Theory, frequentism (either in its classical form or in the novel variant I present) seems to constitute a viable option; this doesn't mean of course that frequentism is unproblematic; it means, rather, that frequentism is the least problematic among the available interpretations. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
590 $a School code: 0208.
650 4 $a Logic. $3 529544
650 4 $a Philosophy of Science. $3 894954
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 516511
690 $a 0395
690 $a 0402
690 $a 0422
710 2 $a University of Southern California. $b Philosophy. $3 1673226
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 71-09A.
790 1 0 $a Damnjanovic, Zlatan, $e advisor
790 1 0 $a Van Cleve, James $e committee member
790 1 0 $a Alexander, Kenneth $e committee member
790 $a 0208
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2010
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3418165