{"title":"解读 IPCC 报告中的概率语言","authors":"Corey Dethier","doi":"10.3998/ergo.4637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) often qualifies its statements by use of probabilistic “likelihood” language. In this paper, I show that this language is not properly interpreted in either frequentist or Bayesian terms—simply put, the IPCC uses both kinds of statistics to calculate these likelihoods. I then offer a deflationist interpretation: the probabilistic language expresses nothing more than how compatible the evidence is with the given hypothesis according to some method that generates normalized scores. I end by drawing some tentative normative conclusions.","PeriodicalId":504477,"journal":{"name":"Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy","volume":"138 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interpreting the Probabilistic Language in IPCC Reports\",\"authors\":\"Corey Dethier\",\"doi\":\"10.3998/ergo.4637\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) often qualifies its statements by use of probabilistic “likelihood” language. In this paper, I show that this language is not properly interpreted in either frequentist or Bayesian terms—simply put, the IPCC uses both kinds of statistics to calculate these likelihoods. I then offer a deflationist interpretation: the probabilistic language expresses nothing more than how compatible the evidence is with the given hypothesis according to some method that generates normalized scores. I end by drawing some tentative normative conclusions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":504477,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"138 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.4637\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.4637","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Interpreting the Probabilistic Language in IPCC Reports
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) often qualifies its statements by use of probabilistic “likelihood” language. In this paper, I show that this language is not properly interpreted in either frequentist or Bayesian terms—simply put, the IPCC uses both kinds of statistics to calculate these likelihoods. I then offer a deflationist interpretation: the probabilistic language expresses nothing more than how compatible the evidence is with the given hypothesis according to some method that generates normalized scores. I end by drawing some tentative normative conclusions.