Skip to main content
Log in

What Are Degrees of Belief?

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Probabilism is committed to two theses:

  1. 1)

    Opinion comes in degrees—call them degrees of belief, or credences.

  2. 2)

    The degrees of belief of a rational agent obey the probability calculus.

Correspondingly, a natural way to argue for probabilism is:

  1. i)

    to give an account of what degrees of belief are,

and then

  1. ii)

    to show that those things should be probabilities, on pain of irrationality.

Most of the action in the literature concerns stage ii). Assuming that stage i) has been adequately discharged, various authors move on to stage ii) with varied and ingenious arguments. But an unsatisfactory response at stage i) clearly undermines any gains that might be accrued at stage ii) as far as probabilism is concerned: if those things are not degrees of belief, then it is irrelevant to probabilism whether they should be probabilities or not.

In this paper we scrutinize the state of play regarding stage i). We critically examine several of the leading accounts of degrees of belief: reducing them to corresponding betting behavior (de Finetti); measuring them by that behavior (Jeffrey); and analyzing them in terms of preferences and their role in decision-making more generally (Ramsey, Lewis, Maher). We argue that the accounts fail, and so they are unfit to subserve arguments for probabilism. We conclude more positively: ‘degree of belief’ should be taken as a primitive concept that forms the basis of our best theory of rational belief and decision: probabilism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armendt Brad (1993) ‘Dutch Books, Additivity, and Utility Theory’. Philosophical Topics 21:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong D.M. (1983) What is a Law of Nature?. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Block Ned (1981) ‘Psychologism and Behaviorism’. Philosophical Review 90:5–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovens Luc, and James Hawthorne (1999) ‘The Preface, The Lottery, and the Logic of Belief’. Mind 108:241–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm Roderick (1957) Perceiving, Ithaca. New York, Cornell University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen David (2004) Putting Logic In Its Place. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson Donald (1970). ’Mental Events’. In: Foster L., Swanson J.M. (eds). Experience and Theory. Cambridge, MA, University of Massachussetts Press

    Google Scholar 

  • [de Finetti, Bruno (1990)] Theory of Probability, Vol. I (first edition 1974), New York, Wiley.

  • Earman John (1992) Bayes or Bust?. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman Michael (1974) ‘Explanation and Scientific Understanding’. The Journal of Philosophy 71:5–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hájek, Alan (MS)] A Puzzle About Degree of Belief.

  • Howson, Colin, and Peter Urbach (2006)] Scientific Reasoning: the Bayesian Approach (first edition 1989), La Salle, Ill, Open Court.

  • Jackson Frank (1997) From Metaphysics to Ethics. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, Richard (1966)] The Logic of Decision, Chicago, University of Chicago Press; 2nd ed. 1983.

  • Jeffrey Richard (2004) Subjective Probability—The Real Thing. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce James M. (1998) ‘A Non-Pragmatic Vindication of Probabilism’. Philosophy of Science 65:575–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [Kitcher, Philip (1989)] ‘Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World’, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 410–505.

  • Lewis David (1973) Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • [Lewis, David (1980)] ‘A Subjectivist’s Guide to Objective Chance’, in Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, Volume II, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 263–293; reprinted in Philosophical Papers, Volume II, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1986, 83–132.

  • [Lewis, David (1974)] ‘Radical Interpretation’, Synthese 27:331–44; reprinted in Philosophical Papers, Vol 1, New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maher Patrick (1993) Betting on Theories. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Pargetter R. (1984) ‘Laws and Modal Realism’. Philosophical Studies 46:335–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam Hilary (1965) ‘Brains and Behavior’. In: Butler R.J. (eds) Analytical Philosophy, Second Series. New York, Barnes & Noble, 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • [Ramsey, F. P. (1990)] ‘Truth and Probability’, in D. H. Mellor (ed.), F. P. Ramsey: Philosophical Papers, Cambridge, University Press, Cambridge (first published in R. B. Braithwaite (ed.), Foundations of Mathematics and other Essays, London, Routledge & P. Kegan, 1931, 156–198; reprinted in H. E. Kyburg, Jr. and H. E. Smokler (eds.), Studies in Subjective Probability, 2nd ed., Huntington, NY, R. E. Krieger Publishing Company, 1980, pp. 23–52).

  • Reichenbach Hans (1949) The Theory of Probability. Berkeley, University of California Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell Bertrand (1919) Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London, Unwin

    Google Scholar 

  • Schick Frederic (1986) ‘Dutch Bookies and Money Pumps’. The Journal of Philosophy 83:112–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms Brian (1980) Causal Necessity. New Haven and London, Yale University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms Brian (1984) Pragmatics and Empiricism. New Haven, Yale University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith Michael (1987) ‘The Humean Theory of Motivation’. Mind 96:36–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • [Sober, Elliott (2005)] ‘Evolutionary Theory and the Reality of Macro Probabilities’, draft manuscript (also PSA2004 Presidential Address). Currently available at: http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/papers.htm

  • Strawson Galen (1994) Mental Reality. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooley Michael (1987) Causation, a Realist Approach. Oxford, Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen Bas (1984) ‘Belief and the Will’. Journal of Philosophy 81:235–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Mises Richard (1957) Probability, Statistics and Truth, revised English edition. New York, Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson Timothy (2000) Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Zynda Lyle (2000) ‘Representation Theorems and Realism about Degrees of Belief’. Philosophy of Science 67:45–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lina Eriksson.

Additional information

Special Issue Formal Epistemology I. Edited by Branden Fitelson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eriksson, L., Hájek, A. What Are Degrees of Belief?. Stud Logica 86, 183–213 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-007-9059-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-007-9059-4

Keywords

Navigation