Formal consistency of the Principal Principle revisited

IF 1.5 1区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Leszek Wroński, Zalán Gyenis, Mariangela Zoe Cocchiaro
{"title":"Formal consistency of the Principal Principle revisited","authors":"Leszek Wroński, Zalán Gyenis, Mariangela Zoe Cocchiaro","doi":"10.1007/s13194-025-00636-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We rigorously describe the relation in which a credence function should stand to a set of chance functions in order for these to be compatible in the way mandated by the Principal Principle. This resolves an apparent contradiction in the literature, by means of providing a formal way of combining credences with modest chance functions so that the latter indeed serve as guides for the former. Along the way we note some problematic consequences of taking admissibility to imply requirements involving probabilistic independence. We also argue, <i>contra</i> (Hawthorne et al., <i>The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,</i> <i>68</i>(1), 123–131 2017), that the Principal Principle does <i>not</i> imply the Principle of Indifference.</p>","PeriodicalId":48832,"journal":{"name":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-025-00636-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We rigorously describe the relation in which a credence function should stand to a set of chance functions in order for these to be compatible in the way mandated by the Principal Principle. This resolves an apparent contradiction in the literature, by means of providing a formal way of combining credences with modest chance functions so that the latter indeed serve as guides for the former. Along the way we note some problematic consequences of taking admissibility to imply requirements involving probabilistic independence. We also argue, contra (Hawthorne et al., The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 68(1), 123–131 2017), that the Principal Principle does not imply the Principle of Indifference.

重新审视主要原则的形式一致性
我们严格地描述了可信度函数与一组机会函数之间的关系,以使这些函数能够按照 "主要原则 "所规定的方式相容。这就解决了文献中的一个明显矛盾,即提供了一种将可信度与适度机会函数结合起来的正式方法,从而使后者确实成为前者的指南。在此过程中,我们注意到了将可接受性理解为涉及概率独立性要求的一些问题后果。我们还反驳了(霍桑等,《英国科学哲学杂志》,68(1),123-131 2017),主要原则并不意味着无偏原则。
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
European Journal for Philosophy of Science
European Journal for Philosophy of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The European Journal for Philosophy of Science publishes groundbreaking works that can deepen understanding of the concepts and methods of the sciences, as they explore increasingly many facets of the world we live in. It is of direct interest to philosophers of science coming from different perspectives, as well as scientists, citizens and policymakers. The journal is interested in articles from all traditions and all backgrounds, as long as they engage with the sciences in a constructive, and critical, way. The journal represents the various longstanding European philosophical traditions engaging with the sciences, but welcomes articles from every part of the world.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信