概率与倾向

IF 0.5 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Philosophical Papers Pub Date : 2019-03-21 DOI:10.1093/OSO/9780199334872.003.0015

P. Humphreys

{"title":"概率与倾向","authors":"P. Humphreys","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780199334872.003.0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Retrospective reflections are provided on the papers “Why Propensities Cannot Be Probabilities,” “Some Considerations on Conditional Chances,” and “Probability Theory and Its Models” by Paul Humphreys. A discussion of whether probability theory is a mathematical or an empirical theory is provided and the point made that mathematical theories are not revised but replaced when used as models of empirical phenomena. Probability theory qua formal theory has a mathematical interpretation but any empirical interpretation, contra Quine, is completely detachable. A replacement for Quine’s web metaphor is suggested. The author assesses Donald Gillies’ response to Humphreys’ Paradox, and reasons not to abandon the single case propensity interpretation of probabilities are given. Responses to the paradox by Mauricio Suárez, Isabelle Drouet, Leslie Ballentine, and David Miller are discussed, and an argument given that the temporal evolution approach is primary for absolute propensities.","PeriodicalId":46780,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Papers","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Probability and Propensities\",\"authors\":\"P. Humphreys\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780199334872.003.0015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Retrospective reflections are provided on the papers “Why Propensities Cannot Be Probabilities,” “Some Considerations on Conditional Chances,” and “Probability Theory and Its Models” by Paul Humphreys. A discussion of whether probability theory is a mathematical or an empirical theory is provided and the point made that mathematical theories are not revised but replaced when used as models of empirical phenomena. Probability theory qua formal theory has a mathematical interpretation but any empirical interpretation, contra Quine, is completely detachable. A replacement for Quine’s web metaphor is suggested. The author assesses Donald Gillies’ response to Humphreys’ Paradox, and reasons not to abandon the single case propensity interpretation of probabilities are given. Responses to the paradox by Mauricio Suárez, Isabelle Drouet, Leslie Ballentine, and David Miller are discussed, and an argument given that the temporal evolution approach is primary for absolute propensities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46780,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophical Papers\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophical Papers\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199334872.003.0015\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199334872.003.0015","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

对保罗·汉弗莱斯的论文《为什么倾向不可能是概率》、《关于条件机会的一些考虑》和《概率论及其模型》进行了回顾性的反思。本文讨论了概率论是数学理论还是经验理论，并指出数学理论在作为经验现象的模型使用时不会被修正，而是被取代。作为形式理论的概率论有数学解释，但任何经验解释，与蒯因相反，都是完全可分离的。本文提出了一种替代奎因的网络隐喻的方法。作者评估了唐纳德·吉利斯对汉弗莱斯悖论的回应，并给出了不放弃概率的个案倾向解释的理由。本文讨论了毛里西奥Suárez、伊莎贝尔·杜洛埃、莱斯利·巴伦廷和大卫·米勒对悖论的回应，并提出了一个论点，即时间进化方法是绝对倾向的主要方法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Probability and Propensities

Retrospective reflections are provided on the papers “Why Propensities Cannot Be Probabilities,” “Some Considerations on Conditional Chances,” and “Probability Theory and Its Models” by Paul Humphreys. A discussion of whether probability theory is a mathematical or an empirical theory is provided and the point made that mathematical theories are not revised but replaced when used as models of empirical phenomena. Probability theory qua formal theory has a mathematical interpretation but any empirical interpretation, contra Quine, is completely detachable. A replacement for Quine’s web metaphor is suggested. The author assesses Donald Gillies’ response to Humphreys’ Paradox, and reasons not to abandon the single case propensity interpretation of probabilities are given. Responses to the paradox by Mauricio Suárez, Isabelle Drouet, Leslie Ballentine, and David Miller are discussed, and an argument given that the temporal evolution approach is primary for absolute propensities.

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

Philosophical Papers PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

2.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Philosophical Papers is an international, generalist journal of philosophy edited in South Africa Original Articles: Articles appearing in regular issues are original, high-quality, and stand-alone, and are written for the general professional philosopher. Submissions are welcome in any area of philosophy and undergo a process of peer review based on initial editor screening and refereeing by (usually) two referees. Special Issues: Topic-based special issues are comprised of both invited and submitted papers selected by guest editors. Recent special issues have included ''Philosophy''s Therapeutic Potential'' (2014, editor Dylan Futter); ''Aging and the Elderly'' (2012, editors Tom Martin and Samantha Vice); ''The Problem of the Criterion'' (2011, editor Mark Nelson); ''Retributive Emotions'' (2010, editor Lucy Allais); ‘Rape and its Meaning/s’ (2009, editor Louise du Toit). Calls for papers for upcoming special issues can be found here. Ideas for future special issues are welcome.