Boole, Ramsey and the Keynes-Townshend exchanges on subjective probability

IF 0.1 Q4 ECONOMICS History of Economic Thought and Policy Pub Date : 2019-01-01 DOI:10.3280/SPE2018-002003
Rogério Arthmar, M. E. Brady
{"title":"Boole, Ramsey and the Keynes-Townshend exchanges on subjective probability","authors":"Rogério Arthmar, M. E. Brady","doi":"10.3280/SPE2018-002003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Contrary to what is accepted in many quarters, John M. Keynes actually rejected Frank Ramsey’s subjective theory of probability, in general. He did accept, though, Ramsey’s betting quotient approach, but only in the special case where the weight of the evidence w equaled 1, so that all the probabilities were linear, additive, single number answers. In general, however, Keynes’s probabilities were indeterminate, that is, interval valued with the characteristic of being non-additive and nonlinear because the weight of evidence w was generally less than 1. The Boolean roots of Keynes’s approach to probability and his often-neglected exchanges with Hugh Townshend in 1937-38 provide strong evidence that Keynes never changed his mind on the subjective approach to probability. It is shown that, for Ramsey, the degree of belief is the confidence a decision maker has in the betting odds while, for Keynes, it is the degree of ‘rational’ or logical belief based on George Boole’s logic of propositions.","PeriodicalId":40401,"journal":{"name":"History of Economic Thought and Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Economic Thought and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3280/SPE2018-002003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Contrary to what is accepted in many quarters, John M. Keynes actually rejected Frank Ramsey’s subjective theory of probability, in general. He did accept, though, Ramsey’s betting quotient approach, but only in the special case where the weight of the evidence w equaled 1, so that all the probabilities were linear, additive, single number answers. In general, however, Keynes’s probabilities were indeterminate, that is, interval valued with the characteristic of being non-additive and nonlinear because the weight of evidence w was generally less than 1. The Boolean roots of Keynes’s approach to probability and his often-neglected exchanges with Hugh Townshend in 1937-38 provide strong evidence that Keynes never changed his mind on the subjective approach to probability. It is shown that, for Ramsey, the degree of belief is the confidence a decision maker has in the betting odds while, for Keynes, it is the degree of ‘rational’ or logical belief based on George Boole’s logic of propositions.
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
布尔、拉姆齐与凯恩斯-汤森关于主观概率的交换
与许多人所接受的相反,约翰·M·凯恩斯实际上总体上拒绝了弗兰克·拉姆齐的主观概率理论。不过,他确实接受了拉姆齐的下注商方法,但仅在证据w的权重等于1的特殊情况下,因此所有概率都是线性的、加法的、单数答案。然而,一般来说,凯恩斯的概率是不确定的,即具有非加性和非线性特征的区间值,因为证据的权重w通常小于1。凯恩斯概率论的布尔根,以及他在1937-38年与休·汤森的经常被忽视的交流,有力地证明了凯恩斯从未改变他对概率论的主观方法的看法。研究表明,对拉姆齐来说,信念的程度是决策者对赌注的信心,而对凯恩斯来说,这是基于乔治·布尔命题逻辑的“理性”或逻辑信念的程度。
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
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Market Failures and Multi-layered Collective Action. US Economic Debates The Impossibility of a Paretian (Il)liberal. A Historical Review Around Sen's Liberalism (1970-1996) Facing Stagflation in the Seventies in Italy: Fausto Vicarelli's Economic Policy Proposals Louis Brandeis - Founding Father of Modern-Day Antitrust? Book review
×
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