{"title":"形式定性概率","authors":"Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan","doi":"10.1017/s1755020319000480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Choices rarely deal with certainties; and, where assertoric logic and modal logic are insufficient, those seeking to be reasonable turn to one or more things called “probability.” These things typically have a shared mathematical form, which is an arithmetic construct. The construct is often felt to be unsatisfactory for various reasons. A more general construct is that of a preordering, which may even be incomplete, allowing for cases in which there is no known probability relation between two propositions or between two events. Previous discussion of incomplete preorderings has been as if incidental, with researchers focusing upon preorderings for which quantifications are possible. This article presents formal axioms for the more general case. Challenges peculiar to some specific interpretations of the nature of probability are brought to light in the context of these propositions. A qualitative interpretation is offered for probability differences that are often taken to be quantified. A generalization of Bayesian updating is defended without dependence upon coherence. Qualitative hypothesis testing is offered as a possible alternative in cases for which quantitative hypothesis testing is shown to be unsuitable.\n","PeriodicalId":49628,"journal":{"name":"Review of Symbolic Logic","volume":"19 1","pages":"882-909"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Formal Qualitative Probability\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1755020319000480\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Choices rarely deal with certainties; and, where assertoric logic and modal logic are insufficient, those seeking to be reasonable turn to one or more things called “probability.” These things typically have a shared mathematical form, which is an arithmetic construct. The construct is often felt to be unsatisfactory for various reasons. A more general construct is that of a preordering, which may even be incomplete, allowing for cases in which there is no known probability relation between two propositions or between two events. Previous discussion of incomplete preorderings has been as if incidental, with researchers focusing upon preorderings for which quantifications are possible. This article presents formal axioms for the more general case. Challenges peculiar to some specific interpretations of the nature of probability are brought to light in the context of these propositions. A qualitative interpretation is offered for probability differences that are often taken to be quantified. A generalization of Bayesian updating is defended without dependence upon coherence. Qualitative hypothesis testing is offered as a possible alternative in cases for which quantitative hypothesis testing is shown to be unsuitable.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":49628,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Symbolic Logic\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"882-909\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Symbolic Logic\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755020319000480\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"数学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LOGIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Symbolic Logic","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755020319000480","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LOGIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
Choices rarely deal with certainties; and, where assertoric logic and modal logic are insufficient, those seeking to be reasonable turn to one or more things called “probability.” These things typically have a shared mathematical form, which is an arithmetic construct. The construct is often felt to be unsatisfactory for various reasons. A more general construct is that of a preordering, which may even be incomplete, allowing for cases in which there is no known probability relation between two propositions or between two events. Previous discussion of incomplete preorderings has been as if incidental, with researchers focusing upon preorderings for which quantifications are possible. This article presents formal axioms for the more general case. Challenges peculiar to some specific interpretations of the nature of probability are brought to light in the context of these propositions. A qualitative interpretation is offered for probability differences that are often taken to be quantified. A generalization of Bayesian updating is defended without dependence upon coherence. Qualitative hypothesis testing is offered as a possible alternative in cases for which quantitative hypothesis testing is shown to be unsuitable.
期刊介绍:
The Review of Symbolic Logic is designed to cultivate research on the borders of logic, philosophy, and the sciences, and to support substantive interactions between these disciplines. The journal welcomes submissions in any of the following areas, broadly construed:
- The general study of logical systems and their semantics,including non-classical logics and algebraic logic;
- Philosophical logic and formal epistemology, including interactions with decision theory and game theory;
- The history, philosophy, and methodology of logic and mathematics, including the history of philosophy of logic and mathematics;
- Applications of logic to the sciences, such as computer science, cognitive science, and linguistics; and logical results addressing foundational issues in the sciences.