What probability probably isn't

Analysis 75 (1):53-59 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Joyce and others have claimed that degrees of belief are estimates of truth-values and that the probability axioms are conditions of admissibility for these estimates with respect to a scoring rule penalizing inaccuracy. In this article, I argue that the claim that the rules of probability are truth-directed in this way depends on an assumption that is both implausible and lacks any supporting evidence, strongly suggesting that the probability axioms have nothing intrinsically to do with truth-directedness

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,709

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-12-24

Downloads
155 (#121,963)

6 months
5 (#626,659)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Colin Howson
Last affiliation: London School of Economics

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

A nonpragmatic vindication of probabilism.James M. Joyce - 1998 - Philosophy of Science 65 (4):575-603.
Accuracy and Coherence: Prospects for an Alethic Epistemology of Partial Belief.James M. Joyce - 2009 - In Franz Huber & Christoph Schmidt-Petri (eds.), Degrees of belief. London: Springer. pp. 263-297.
De finetti, countable additivity, consistency and coherence.Colin Howson - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (1):1-23.

Add more references