Janina Hosiasson and the value of evidence

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2024-06-08 DOI:10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.05.013
Christian Torsell
{"title":"Janina Hosiasson and the value of evidence","authors":"Christian Torsell","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.05.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>I.J. Good’s “On the Principle of Total Evidence” (1967) looms large in decision theory and Bayesian epistemology. Good proves that in <span>Savage</span>’s (<span>1954</span>) decision theory, a coherent agent always prefers to collect, rather than ignore, free evidence. It is now well known that Good’s result was prefigured in an unpublished note by Frank Ramsey (Skyrms 2006). The present paper highlights another early forerunner to Good’s argument, appearing in Janina Hosiasson’s “Why do We Prefer Probabilities Relative to Many Data?” (1931), that has been neglected in the literature. Section 1 reviews Good’s argument and the problem it was meant to resolve; call this the <em>value of evidence problem</em>. Section 2 offers a brief history of the value of evidence problem and provides biographical background to contextualize Hosiasson’s contribution. Section 3 explicates the central argument of Hosiasson’s paper and considers its relationship to Good’s (1967).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"106 ","pages":"Pages 31-36"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003936812400061X/pdfft?md5=dee41446b72e8c6da2e20e62b0eff33e&pid=1-s2.0-S003936812400061X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003936812400061X","RegionNum":2,"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

I.J. Good’s “On the Principle of Total Evidence” (1967) looms large in decision theory and Bayesian epistemology. Good proves that in Savage’s (1954) decision theory, a coherent agent always prefers to collect, rather than ignore, free evidence. It is now well known that Good’s result was prefigured in an unpublished note by Frank Ramsey (Skyrms 2006). The present paper highlights another early forerunner to Good’s argument, appearing in Janina Hosiasson’s “Why do We Prefer Probabilities Relative to Many Data?” (1931), that has been neglected in the literature. Section 1 reviews Good’s argument and the problem it was meant to resolve; call this the value of evidence problem. Section 2 offers a brief history of the value of evidence problem and provides biographical background to contextualize Hosiasson’s contribution. Section 3 explicates the central argument of Hosiasson’s paper and considers its relationship to Good’s (1967).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
雅尼娜-霍西阿松与证据的价值
古德(I.J. Good)的《论证据总量原则》(1967 年)在决策理论和贝叶斯认识论中占有重要地位。古德证明,在萨维奇(1954 年)的决策理论中,一致的代理人总是倾向于收集而不是忽略自由证据。现在众所周知,古德的结果在弗兰克-拉姆齐(Frank Ramsey)未发表的注释(Skyrms,2006 年)中已有预示。本文强调了古德论证的另一个早期先驱,即出现在雅尼娜-霍西森(Janina Hosiasson)的 "为什么我们更喜欢概率相对于许多数据?(1931)中出现的另一个早期论证,而这一论证在文献中一直被忽视。第 1 节回顾了古德的论证及其旨在解决的问题;称之为证据价值问题。第 2 节简要介绍了证据价值问题的历史,并提供了霍西亚松的背景资料。第 3 节阐述了霍西亚松论文的中心论点,并考虑了其与古德(1967 年)论文的关系。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
6.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science is devoted to the integrated study of the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences. The editors encourage contributions both in the long-established areas of the history of the sciences and the philosophy of the sciences and in the topical areas of historiography of the sciences, the sciences in relation to gender, culture and society and the sciences in relation to arts. The Journal is international in scope and content and publishes papers from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions.
期刊最新文献
Soft control: Furthering the case for Modified Interventionist Theory Explanatory circles Modus Darwin redux The philosophical coming of age of science. Euler’s role in Cassirer’s early philosophy of space and time Freud, bullshit, and pseudoscience
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1