{"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}
引用次数: 0
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.
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
