On R. Muth’s Impossible Dream: Trying to turn Subjective Probabilities into Objective Probabilities

M. E. Brady
{"title":"On R. Muth’s Impossible Dream: Trying to turn Subjective Probabilities into Objective Probabilities","authors":"M. E. Brady","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3398766","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"R. Muth’s 1961 Econometrica paper is based on a fundamental and basic confusion on his part about the nature of subjective and objective probability that is impossible to remedy. A bifurcation occurred among scientists, mathematicians, and statisticians, starting in the mid 17th century with the work of Pascal, Fermat,and Cardano, about whether probability was subjective or objective. It could not be both. It had to be one or the other.<br><br>Subjective probability always dealt with probability as being inside or internal to the human mind. It was a degree of belief of an individual based on his mental, personal, and psychological assessment of the data and factors he believed were involved in determining the behavior of the particular phenomena. On the other hand, Objective probability was always outside or external to the human mind. It was a part of the empirical, real world of phenomena that could be observed and was completely independently from any personal, emotional, mental, psychological or subjective factors. Objective probability was always a relative frequency in occurrence that would approach the true or correct answer in the limit as the number of observations of the particular phenomena approached infinity or some very large number that was an approximation of infinity. Historically, there are no adherents of the subjective approach to probability who accept the objective approach to probability and there are no adherents of the objective approach to probability who accept a subjective approach to probability. There is not, nor could there ever be, a subjective –objective hybrid theory because the definitions of subjective and objective probability directly contradict and conflict with each other.<br><br>Muth had no historical knowledge of these two completely different definitions, forms, concepts and approaches to probability. Neither did the referees of his paper for Econometrica nor any proponent, advocate, supporter or user of what Muth claimed was the rational expectations hypothesis, which was that, for a given information set, the subjective estimates of probability (subjective probability distributions) were distributed around one single, objective, true, correct objective probability distribution. Muth apparently never realized that his definition was an oxymoron. It is impossible by definition. Nowhere in any of his references are there any that deal with the completely different theories of subjective and objective probability; there are no references to any sources in the history of science, history of probability, history of statistics, philosophy of science, philosophy of probability, or philosophy of statistics. There are no references to methodology or epistemology or to the philosophy of social science.<br><br>Muth used the 1944 Von Neumann-Morgenstern approach to Expected Utility as the foundation for his theory of consumer and producer maximization of utility and profit in his 1961 article. However, it was made very clear by Von Neumann and Morgenstern that they were going to assume the use of objective frequencies only, because they were only going to deal with risk, where risk was defined to be based on known, objective probability. No subjective probability was allowed. Von Neumann had a completely different theory to deal with (complete) uncertainty when no probabilities were known, which he called min-max. Thus, the individual consumer-producer probability distributions would have to be objective, not subjective, in Muth’s paper in order to be consistent with the theory of risk analyzed by Von Neumann-Morgenstern in 1944. Out of nowhere, Muth starts talking about subjective probabilities (distributions) being distributed, for a given information set, around a true, correct, objective probability distribution. This is impossible and can never occur. There is absolutely no foundation at all in any theory of probability for Muth’s definition of rational expectations.<br><br>The entire literature on the rational expectations hypothesis needs to be completely and totally reformulated and rewritten so as to be consistent with a foundation in either the subjective theory of probability or the objective theory of probability. Otherwise, rational expectationists need to state that they are not dealing with probability and statistics at all. They are simply assuming the very extreme position of complete knowledge from the Greenspan or Keynesian Continuum or spectrum that ranges from situations of complete ignorance to situations of complete knowledge. Currently, there simply is no foundation in any theory of probability for the rational expectations hypothesis, as defined by Muth in 1961 and accepted in the literature in economics since the Robert Lucas paper of 1972, which simply repeats all of the unsupportable claims made by Muth in his definition of rational expectations in 1961 that confused subjective and objective probability. <br><br><br>","PeriodicalId":176096,"journal":{"name":"Economic History eJournal","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economic History eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3398766","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

R. Muth’s 1961 Econometrica paper is based on a fundamental and basic confusion on his part about the nature of subjective and objective probability that is impossible to remedy. A bifurcation occurred among scientists, mathematicians, and statisticians, starting in the mid 17th century with the work of Pascal, Fermat,and Cardano, about whether probability was subjective or objective. It could not be both. It had to be one or the other.

Subjective probability always dealt with probability as being inside or internal to the human mind. It was a degree of belief of an individual based on his mental, personal, and psychological assessment of the data and factors he believed were involved in determining the behavior of the particular phenomena. On the other hand, Objective probability was always outside or external to the human mind. It was a part of the empirical, real world of phenomena that could be observed and was completely independently from any personal, emotional, mental, psychological or subjective factors. Objective probability was always a relative frequency in occurrence that would approach the true or correct answer in the limit as the number of observations of the particular phenomena approached infinity or some very large number that was an approximation of infinity. Historically, there are no adherents of the subjective approach to probability who accept the objective approach to probability and there are no adherents of the objective approach to probability who accept a subjective approach to probability. There is not, nor could there ever be, a subjective –objective hybrid theory because the definitions of subjective and objective probability directly contradict and conflict with each other.

Muth had no historical knowledge of these two completely different definitions, forms, concepts and approaches to probability. Neither did the referees of his paper for Econometrica nor any proponent, advocate, supporter or user of what Muth claimed was the rational expectations hypothesis, which was that, for a given information set, the subjective estimates of probability (subjective probability distributions) were distributed around one single, objective, true, correct objective probability distribution. Muth apparently never realized that his definition was an oxymoron. It is impossible by definition. Nowhere in any of his references are there any that deal with the completely different theories of subjective and objective probability; there are no references to any sources in the history of science, history of probability, history of statistics, philosophy of science, philosophy of probability, or philosophy of statistics. There are no references to methodology or epistemology or to the philosophy of social science.

Muth used the 1944 Von Neumann-Morgenstern approach to Expected Utility as the foundation for his theory of consumer and producer maximization of utility and profit in his 1961 article. However, it was made very clear by Von Neumann and Morgenstern that they were going to assume the use of objective frequencies only, because they were only going to deal with risk, where risk was defined to be based on known, objective probability. No subjective probability was allowed. Von Neumann had a completely different theory to deal with (complete) uncertainty when no probabilities were known, which he called min-max. Thus, the individual consumer-producer probability distributions would have to be objective, not subjective, in Muth’s paper in order to be consistent with the theory of risk analyzed by Von Neumann-Morgenstern in 1944. Out of nowhere, Muth starts talking about subjective probabilities (distributions) being distributed, for a given information set, around a true, correct, objective probability distribution. This is impossible and can never occur. There is absolutely no foundation at all in any theory of probability for Muth’s definition of rational expectations.

The entire literature on the rational expectations hypothesis needs to be completely and totally reformulated and rewritten so as to be consistent with a foundation in either the subjective theory of probability or the objective theory of probability. Otherwise, rational expectationists need to state that they are not dealing with probability and statistics at all. They are simply assuming the very extreme position of complete knowledge from the Greenspan or Keynesian Continuum or spectrum that ranges from situations of complete ignorance to situations of complete knowledge. Currently, there simply is no foundation in any theory of probability for the rational expectations hypothesis, as defined by Muth in 1961 and accepted in the literature in economics since the Robert Lucas paper of 1972, which simply repeats all of the unsupportable claims made by Muth in his definition of rational expectations in 1961 that confused subjective and objective probability.


论R. Muth不可能的梦想:试图将主观概率转化为客观概率
穆特(R. Muth) 1961年发表在《计量经济学》(Econometrica)上的论文,是基于他对主观概率和客观概率本质的一个根本和基本的混淆,而这个混淆是不可能纠正的。从17世纪中期帕斯卡、费马和卡尔达诺的研究开始,科学家、数学家和统计学家之间就概率是主观的还是客观的问题产生了分歧。不可能两者兼而有之。它必须是其中之一。主观概率论总是把概率看作是人类思维的内部或内在。这是一个人的信念程度,基于他对他认为决定特定现象行为的数据和因素的精神、个人和心理评估。另一方面,客观概率总是在人的思维之外。它是经验的一部分,是可以观察到的现象的真实世界,完全独立于任何个人、情感、精神、心理或主观因素。客观概率总是发生的相对频率,当对特定现象的观察次数接近无穷大或接近无穷大的某个非常大的数字时,它会在极限下接近真实或正确的答案。从历史上看,没有一个主观概率方法的拥护者接受客观概率方法,也没有一个客观概率方法的拥护者接受主观概率方法。主客观混合理论不存在,也不可能存在,因为主观概率和客观概率的定义直接相互矛盾和冲突。Muth对这两种完全不同的概率定义、形式、概念和方法没有历史知识。他在《计量经济学》(Econometrica)上发表的论文的审稿人,以及穆斯所称的理性预期假说的任何支持者、倡导者、支持者或使用者,都没有发现。理性预期假说认为,对于给定的信息集,概率的主观估计(主观概率分布)是围绕一个单一的、客观的、真实的、正确的客观概率分布分布的。穆特显然从未意识到他的定义是一个矛盾修饰法。从定义上讲,这是不可能的。在他的任何参考文献中都没有涉及到主观概率和客观概率的完全不同的理论;在科学史、概率史、统计史、科学哲学、概率哲学或统计哲学中没有任何参考资料。没有提到方法论或认识论或社会科学哲学。Muth在1961年的文章中使用了1944年冯·诺伊曼-摩根斯坦的预期效用方法作为他的消费者和生产者效用和利润最大化理论的基础。然而,冯·诺伊曼和摩根斯特恩明确表示,他们只会假设使用客观频率,因为他们只会处理风险,而风险被定义为基于已知的客观概率。不允许主观概率。冯·诺伊曼有一个完全不同的理论来处理(完全)不确定性,当不知道概率时,他称之为最小-最大。因此,在Muth的论文中,个体消费者-生产者概率分布必须是客观的,而不是主观的,以便与冯·诺伊曼-摩根斯坦在1944年分析的风险理论保持一致。不知怎么的,Muth开始谈论主观概率(分布)被分布,对于一个给定的信息集,围绕一个真实的,正确的,客观的概率分布。这是不可能的,也永远不会发生。穆特对理性预期的定义在任何概率论中都绝对没有任何基础。整个关于理性预期假设的文献都需要彻底彻底地重新表述和改写,以便与主观概率论或客观概率论的基础相一致。否则,理性预期主义者需要声明,他们根本不是在处理概率和统计数据。他们只是从格林斯潘或凯恩斯的连续统或光谱中假设了非常极端的完全知识,从完全无知的情况到完全知识的情况。目前,理性预期假说在任何概率论中都没有任何基础。理性预期假说是Muth在1961年定义的,自1972年Robert Lucas的论文以来被经济学文献所接受,只是重复Muth在1961年对理性预期的定义中所提出的所有不支持的主张,这些主张混淆了主观和客观概率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信