On Leaving as Little to Chance as Possible

In Mario Augusto Bunge, Michael R. Matthews, Guillermo M. Denegri, Eduardo L. Ortiz, Heinz W. Droste, Alberto Cordero, Pierre Deleporte, María Manzano, Manuel Crescencio Moreno, Dominique Raynaud, Íñigo Ongay de Felipe, Nicholas Rescher, Richard T. W. Arthur, Rögnvaldur D. Ingthorsson, Evandro Agazzi, Ingvar Johansson, Joseph Agassi, Nimrod Bar-Am, Alberto Cupani, Gustavo E. Romero, Andrés Rivadulla, Art Hobson, Olival Freire Junior, Peter Slezak, Ignacio Morgado-Bernal, Marta Crivos, Leonardo Ivarola, Andreas Pickel, Russell Blackford, Michael Kary, A. Z. Obiedat, Carolina I. García Curilaf, Rafael González del Solar, Luis Marone, Javier Lopez de Casenave, Francisco Yannarella, Mauro A. E. Chaparro, José Geiser Villavicencio- Pulido, Martín Orensanz, Jean-Pierre Marquis, Reinhard Kahle, Ibrahim A. Halloun, José María Gil, Omar Ahmad, Byron Kaldis, Marc Silberstein, Carolina I. García Curilaf, Rafael González del Solar, Javier Lopez de Casenave, Íñigo Ongay de Felipe & Villavicencio-Pulid (eds.), Mario Bunge: A Centenary Festschrift. Springer Verlag. pp. 609-631 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Randomness was one of Mario Bunge’s earliest philosophical interests, and remains as one of his most persistent. Bunge’s view of the nature of randomness has been largely consistent over many decades, despite some evolution. For a long time now, he has seen chance as a purely ontological matter of contingency, something that does not result from either psychological uncertainty or epistemological indeterminacy, and that disappears once the die is cast. He considers the Bayesian school of probability and statistics to be pseudoscientific. Bunge upholds a fairly conventional view that chance is not any part of the purely mathematical theory of probability, and a thoroughly unconventional view that ontologically contingent processes are deterministic, though not classically so. This chapter examines Bunge’s views on probability by investigating what any of the following have to do with each other: chance or randomness, likelihood, the mathematical theory of probability, determinism, independence, belief, psychological uncertainty, and epistemological indeterminacy.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,164

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Chance versus Randomness.Antony Eagle - 2010 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Chance: Individual Indeterminacy of Collective Randomness?Mario Bunge - 2018 - Review of Metaphysics 72 (2):234-244.
Infinitesimal Chances.Thomas Hofweber - 2014 - Philosophers' Imprint 14.
Emergent Chance.Christian List & Marcus Pivato - 2015 - Philosophical Review 124 (1):119-152.
Chance and Probability.Stephen Turner - 2007 - In G. Ritzer, J. M. Ryan & B. Thorn (eds.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (1st Ed.). Wiley. pp. 425-426.
Epistemic theories of objective chance.Richard Johns - 2020 - Synthese 197 (2):703-730.
A philosophical guide to chance.Toby Handfield - 2012 - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Probability and Randomness.Antony Eagle - 2016 - In Alan Hájek & Christopher Hitchcock (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 440-459.
The limited belief in chance.J. Van Brakel - 1991 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 22 (3):499-513.
Imprecise Probability and Chance.Anthony F. Peressini - 2016 - Erkenntnis 81 (3):561-586.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-06-17

Downloads
12 (#1,015,715)

6 months
3 (#857,336)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references