Philosophical Studies 177 (11):3213-3242 (2020)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
The epistemic probability of A given B is the degree to which B evidentially supports A, or makes A plausible. This paper is a first step in answering the question of what determines the values of epistemic probabilities. I break this question into two parts: the structural question and the substantive question. Just as an object’s weight is determined by its mass and gravitational acceleration, some probabilities are determined by other, more basic ones. The structural question asks what probabilities are not determined in this way—these are the basic probabilities which determine values for all other probabilities. The substantive question asks how the values of these basic probabilities are determined. I defend an answer to the structural question on which basic probabilities are the probabilities of atomic propositions conditional on potential direct explanations. I defend this against the view, implicit in orthodox mathematical treatments of probability, that basic probabilities are the unconditional probabilities of complete worlds. I then apply my answer to the structural question to clear up common confusions in expositions of Bayesianism and shed light on the “problem of the priors.”
|
Keywords | Bayesian epistemology Bayesian networks Explanation Probability Inference to the best explanation |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
Reprint years | 2019, 2020 |
ISBN(s) | |
DOI | 10.1007/s11098-019-01367-0 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Logical Foundations of Probability.Rudolf Carnap - 1950 - Chicago, IL, USA: Chicago University of Chicago Press.
View all 71 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Belief, Credence, and Moral Encroachment.Elizabeth Jackson & James Fritz - 2021 - Synthese 199 (1-2):1387–1408.
Evidence and Inductive Inference.Nevin Climenhaga - 2021 - In Maria Lasonen-Aarnio & Clayton Littlejohn (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Evidence. Routledge.
Inference to the Best Explanation Made Incoherent.Nevin Climenhaga - 2017 - Journal of Philosophy 114 (5):251-273.
Molinism: Explaining Our Freedom Away.Nevin Climenhaga & Daniel Rubio - 2022 - Mind 131 (522):459-485.
View all 14 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Conditional Probabilities and Probabilities Given Knowledge of a Condition.Paul Weirich - 1983 - Philosophy of Science 50 (1):82-95.
Conditional Probabilities, Conditionalization, and Dutch Books.Jordan Howard Sobel - 1990 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:503-515.
Carnap's Inductive Probabilities as a Contribution to Decision Theory.Joachim Hornung - 1980 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 1 (3):325-367.
Probability.Branden Fitelson, Alan Hajek & Ned Hall - 2006 - In Jessica Pfeifer & Sahotra Sarkar (eds.), The Philosophy of Science: An Encyclopedia. Routledge.
The Irrelevance of the Risk-Uncertainty Distinction.Dominic Roser - 2017 - Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (5):1387-1407.
An Analysis of Indefinite Probability Statements.John Bigelow & Robert Pargetter - 1987 - Synthese 73 (2):361 - 370.
Causal Reasoning, Causal Probabilities, and Conceptions of Causation.Isabelle Drouet - 2012 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43 (4):761-768.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2019-12-12
Total views
706 ( #10,749 of 2,507,717 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
127 ( #5,321 of 2,507,717 )
2019-12-12
Total views
706 ( #10,749 of 2,507,717 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
127 ( #5,321 of 2,507,717 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads