Mr. Bayes and the classics: a suggested interpretation

M. Diniz, D. Bellhouse
{"title":"Mr. Bayes and the classics: a suggested interpretation","authors":"M. Diniz, D. Bellhouse","doi":"10.47976/rbhm2022v22n4301-16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The main hypothesis about Thomas Bayes’s intentions to write his famous {\\it Essay} on probability is that he wanted to refute the arguments of David Hume against the reliability of the occurrence of miracles, published in 1748. In this paper we argue that it was not Bayes’s intention to rebut Hume but that his interest on the ``inverse problem'' came about as result of his study of the second edition of Abraham De Moivre’s book, {\\it The Doctrine of Chances}, published in 1738. A possible communication of Bayes’s breakthrough might have annoyed De Moivre, leading to a response written for Bayes in the third edition of De Moivre’s book, published in 1756. Among other points, the response claims that De Moivre was the first to solve the mentioned inverse problem. Under this perspective Richard Price’s letter, written as preface to Bayes’s essay, has a new interpretation, appearing also as a defense of Bayes premiership on a satisfactory or proper solution.","PeriodicalId":34320,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Historia da Matematica","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Historia da Matematica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47976/rbhm2022v22n4301-16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The main hypothesis about Thomas Bayes’s intentions to write his famous {\it Essay} on probability is that he wanted to refute the arguments of David Hume against the reliability of the occurrence of miracles, published in 1748. In this paper we argue that it was not Bayes’s intention to rebut Hume but that his interest on the ``inverse problem'' came about as result of his study of the second edition of Abraham De Moivre’s book, {\it The Doctrine of Chances}, published in 1738. A possible communication of Bayes’s breakthrough might have annoyed De Moivre, leading to a response written for Bayes in the third edition of De Moivre’s book, published in 1756. Among other points, the response claims that De Moivre was the first to solve the mentioned inverse problem. Under this perspective Richard Price’s letter, written as preface to Bayes’s essay, has a new interpretation, appearing also as a defense of Bayes premiership on a satisfactory or proper solution.
贝叶斯与经典:一种建议解读
关于托马斯·贝叶斯写那篇著名的概率论的主要假设是,他想反驳大卫·休谟反对奇迹发生的可靠性的论点,休谟于1748年发表了这篇文章。在本文中,我们认为贝叶斯并非有意反驳休谟,他对“反问题”的兴趣源于他对亚伯拉罕·德·莫弗尔(Abraham De Moivre)于1738年出版的《机会论》(the Doctrine of opportunities)第二版的研究。可能是贝叶斯的突破让De Moivre很恼火,于是他在1756年出版的De Moivre的书的第三版中为贝叶斯写了一封回信。在其他观点中,回应声称De Moivre是第一个解决上述反问题的人。在这种观点下,理查德·普赖斯(Richard Price)作为贝叶斯论文序言写的这封信有了一种新的解释,它也出现在为贝叶斯在令人满意或适当的解决方案上的优势辩护中。
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
16
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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