不确定性和概率的类型:一些评论

IF 0.6 3区 经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS
David Dequech
{"title":"不确定性和概率的类型:一些评论","authors":"David Dequech","doi":"10.1080/01603477.2023.2222721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article comments on Donald Katzner’s “The Problem with Probability.” Professor Katzner criticizes any approach that uses probability to deal with “Knightian uncertainty.” The present article attempts to promote and improve the dialogue between proponents of different approaches to uncertainty and probability, as well as between different proponents of Post Keynesian economics. In this regard, this article highlights (a) the difference between Knightian risk and Savage’s uncertainty, (b) the acceptance into mainstream economics of approaches that go beyond both, (c) the fact that Keynes’s writings of the mid-1930s combined uncertainty with probability and weight in crucial parts of his theory, and (d) some comments on Shackle by authors in the Keynes literature. This article also intends to provide food for thought, hopefully stimulating Professor Katzner and other sympathizers of Shackle’s conception of uncertainty to reconsider the statement or the implication that uncertainty of the strongest type relevant in economic reality is synonymous with complete ignorance about the future.","PeriodicalId":47197,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Post Keynesian Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Types of uncertainty and probability: some remarks\",\"authors\":\"David Dequech\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01603477.2023.2222721\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article comments on Donald Katzner’s “The Problem with Probability.” Professor Katzner criticizes any approach that uses probability to deal with “Knightian uncertainty.” The present article attempts to promote and improve the dialogue between proponents of different approaches to uncertainty and probability, as well as between different proponents of Post Keynesian economics. In this regard, this article highlights (a) the difference between Knightian risk and Savage’s uncertainty, (b) the acceptance into mainstream economics of approaches that go beyond both, (c) the fact that Keynes’s writings of the mid-1930s combined uncertainty with probability and weight in crucial parts of his theory, and (d) some comments on Shackle by authors in the Keynes literature. This article also intends to provide food for thought, hopefully stimulating Professor Katzner and other sympathizers of Shackle’s conception of uncertainty to reconsider the statement or the implication that uncertainty of the strongest type relevant in economic reality is synonymous with complete ignorance about the future.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Post Keynesian Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Post Keynesian Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.2023.2222721\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Post Keynesian Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.2023.2222721","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文对唐纳德·卡兹纳的《概率问题》作了评述。卡兹纳教授批评了任何用概率来处理“奈特式不确定性”的方法。本文试图促进和改善不确定性和概率的不同方法的支持者之间的对话,以及后凯恩斯主义经济学的不同支持者之间的对话。在这方面,本文强调(a)奈特风险和萨维奇的不确定性之间的区别,(b)主流经济学对超越两者的方法的接受,(c)凯恩斯在20世纪30年代中期的著作中将不确定性与概率和权重结合在他理论的关键部分,以及(d)凯恩斯文献中作者对沙克尔的一些评论。这篇文章也打算提供思考的食粮,希望能刺激卡兹纳教授和其他沙克尔不确定性概念的同情者重新考虑与经济现实相关的最强烈类型的不确定性是对未来完全无知的代名词的说法或暗示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Types of uncertainty and probability: some remarks
Abstract This article comments on Donald Katzner’s “The Problem with Probability.” Professor Katzner criticizes any approach that uses probability to deal with “Knightian uncertainty.” The present article attempts to promote and improve the dialogue between proponents of different approaches to uncertainty and probability, as well as between different proponents of Post Keynesian economics. In this regard, this article highlights (a) the difference between Knightian risk and Savage’s uncertainty, (b) the acceptance into mainstream economics of approaches that go beyond both, (c) the fact that Keynes’s writings of the mid-1930s combined uncertainty with probability and weight in crucial parts of his theory, and (d) some comments on Shackle by authors in the Keynes literature. This article also intends to provide food for thought, hopefully stimulating Professor Katzner and other sympathizers of Shackle’s conception of uncertainty to reconsider the statement or the implication that uncertainty of the strongest type relevant in economic reality is synonymous with complete ignorance about the future.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Journal of Post Keynesian Economics is a scholarly journal of innovative theoretical and empirical work that sheds fresh light on contemporary economic problems. It is committed to the principle that cumulative development of economic theory is only possible when the theory is continuously subjected to scrutiny in terms of its ability both to explain the real world and to provide a reliable guide to public policy.
×
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