Probabilistic kingdom: problem of objectivity in contemporary science

Q4 Arts and Humanities Argument Biannual Philosophical Journal Pub Date : 2020-06-29 DOI:10.24917/20841043.9.2.9
Paweł Pruski
{"title":"Probabilistic kingdom: problem of objectivity in contemporary science","authors":"Paweł Pruski","doi":"10.24917/20841043.9.2.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In modern science the theory of probability is one of the basic tools. Scientists using probabil‐ ity often refer to its objective interpretation. They emphasize that their probabilistic hypoth‐ eses concern objective facts, not degrees of belief. Accordingly, the following questions arise: What is the meaning of this type of probabilistic hypothesis? Is the assumption of objectivity necessary? The paper addresses these questions by analyzing objective probability in the con‐ text of the scientific debate on determinism. Two types of arguments will be presented. On the one hand, there is the assertion that objective probability can exist only in an indeterministic world. Then, on the other hand — I analyze the assertions of those who believe in the co‐ existence of objective probability and determinism. As a result I show that the acceptance of deterministic and indeterministic fields as possible areas where objective probability can occur is extremely problematic. Depending on the chosen area we encounter different types of prob‐ lems. Therefore, I show that a significant number of these problems are associated with the acceptance of incorrect metaphysical assumptions. And finally, I postulate that the objectivity of probability (and assumptions pertaining to it) can be reduced (without any losses) to the","PeriodicalId":30403,"journal":{"name":"Argument Biannual Philosophical Journal","volume":"9 1","pages":"317-327"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argument Biannual Philosophical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24917/20841043.9.2.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In modern science the theory of probability is one of the basic tools. Scientists using probabil‐ ity often refer to its objective interpretation. They emphasize that their probabilistic hypoth‐ eses concern objective facts, not degrees of belief. Accordingly, the following questions arise: What is the meaning of this type of probabilistic hypothesis? Is the assumption of objectivity necessary? The paper addresses these questions by analyzing objective probability in the con‐ text of the scientific debate on determinism. Two types of arguments will be presented. On the one hand, there is the assertion that objective probability can exist only in an indeterministic world. Then, on the other hand — I analyze the assertions of those who believe in the co‐ existence of objective probability and determinism. As a result I show that the acceptance of deterministic and indeterministic fields as possible areas where objective probability can occur is extremely problematic. Depending on the chosen area we encounter different types of prob‐ lems. Therefore, I show that a significant number of these problems are associated with the acceptance of incorrect metaphysical assumptions. And finally, I postulate that the objectivity of probability (and assumptions pertaining to it) can be reduced (without any losses) to the
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
概率王国:当代科学的客观性问题
概率论是现代科学的基本工具之一。使用概率论的科学家经常提到它的客观解释。他们强调,他们的概率假设与客观事实有关,而不是信仰程度。因此,出现了以下问题:这种类型的概率假设的含义是什么?客观性的假设有必要吗?本文通过分析关于决定论的科学辩论文本中的客观概率来解决这些问题。将提出两种类型的论点。一方面,有人断言客观概率只能存在于一个不确定的世界中。然后,另一方面,我分析了那些相信客观概率和决定论共存的人的断言。因此,我表明,接受确定性和不确定性场作为可能发生客观概率的区域是非常有问题的。根据所选区域的不同,我们会遇到不同类型的问题。因此,我表明,这些问题中有相当一部分与接受不正确的形而上学假设有关。最后,我假设概率的客观性(以及与之相关的假设)可以减少(没有任何损失)到
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
Argument  Biannual Philosophical Journal
Argument Biannual Philosophical Journal Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Anil Seth, Being you. A new science of consciousness A revitalisation of virtue ethics in contemporary education Synkretyczne pouczenie jogiczne w Ćarakasanhicie (Śarirasthana 1.137–155) Geistlosigkeit. Reflexionen zur Aktualität von Søren Kierkegaards Konstruktion des Selbst im Spannungsfeld von Immanenz und Transzendenz Dharmarāja and Dhammarāja (II)
×
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