{"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":"46 1","pages":"440 - 449"},"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}
引用次数: 1
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.
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.