Abstract
When beliefs are quantified as credences, they are related to each other in terms of closeness and accuracy. The “accuracy first” approach in formal epistemology wants to establish a normative account for credences (probabilism, Bayesian conditioning, principle of indifference, and so on) based entirely on the alethic properties of the credence: how close it is to the truth. To pull off this project, there is a need for a scoring rule. There is widespread agreement about some constraints on this scoring rule (for example propriety), but not whether a unique scoring rule stands above the rest. The Brier score equips credences with a structure similar to metric space and induces a “geometry of reason.” It enjoys great popularity in the current debate. I point out many of its weaknesses in this article. An alternative approach is to reject the geometry of reason and accept information theory in its stead. Information theory comes fully equipped with an axiomatic approach which covers probabilism, standard conditioning, and Jeffrey conditioning. It is not based on an underlying topology of a metric space, but uses a non-commutative divergence instead of a symmetric distance measure. I show that information theory, despite initial promise, also fails to accommodate basic epistemic intuitions; and speculate on its remediation.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Armendt, B. (1980). Is there a dutch book argument for probability kinematics?. Philosophy of Science, 47(4), 583–588.
Borges, J. (1962). Ficciones. New York, NY: Grove Press.
Bregman, L. (1967). The relaxation method of finding the common point of convex sets and its application to the solution of problems in convex programming. USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 7(3), 200–217.
Bronfman, A. (2009). A gap in joyce’s argument for probabilism. University of Michigan: unpublished manuscript.
Chino, N. (1978). A graphical technique for representing the asymmetric relationships between n objects. Behaviormetrika, 5(5), 23–44.
Christensen, D. (1999). Measuring confirmation. Journal of Philosophy, 96(9), 437–461.
Coombs, C.H. (1964). A theory of data. New York: Wiley.
Coxon, A. (1982). The user’s guide to multidimensional scaling. Exeter: Heinemann Educational Books.
Csiszár, I., & Shields, P.C. (2004). Information theory and statistics: A tutorial. Hanover: Now Publishers.
Dawid, A.P., Lauritzen, S., & Parry, M. (2012). Proper local scoring rules on discrete sample spaces. Annals of Statistics, 40(1), 593–608.
De Finetti, B. (2017). Theory of probability. Chichester: Wiley.
Gentleman, R., Ding, B., Dudoit, S., & Ibrahim, J. (2006). Distance measures in dna microarray data analysis. In R. Gentleman, V. Carey, W. Huber, R. Irizarry, & S. Dudoit (Eds.) Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Solutions Using R and Bioconductor. Springer.
Goldstein, M. (1983). The prevision of a prevision. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78(384), 817–819.
Good, I.J. (1952). Rational decisions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 14(1), 107–114.
Grünwald, P.D., & Dawid, A.P. (2004). Game theory, maximum entropy, minimum discrepancy and robust bayesian decision theory. The Annals of Statistics, 32(4), 1367–1433.
Hájek, A. (2003). What conditional probability could not be. Synthese, 137(3), 273–323.
Harshman, R., & Lundy, M. (1984). The parafac model for three-way factor analysis and multidimensional scaling. In H.G. Law (Ed.) Research methods for multimode data analysis (pp. 122–215). New York: Praeger.
Harshman, R.A., Green, P.E., Wind, Y., & Lundy, M.E. (1982). A model for the analysis of asymmetric data in marketing research. Marketing Science, 1(2), 205–242.
Hendrickson, A., & Buehler, R. (1971). Proper scores for probability forecasters. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 42(6), 1916–1921.
Howson, C. (2008). De finetti, countable additivity, consistency and coherence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59(1), 1–23.
Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (2006). Scientific reasoning: The bayesian approach, 3rd edn. Chicago: Open Court.
Joyce, J. (2015). The value of truth: A reply to howson. Analysis, 75(3), 413–424.
Kopperman, R. (1988). All topologies come from generalized metrics. American Mathematical Monthly, 95(2), 89–97.
Landes, J. (2015). Probabilism, entropies and strictly proper scoring rules. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 63, 1–21.
Leitgeb, H., & Pettigrew, R. (2010). An objective justification of bayesianism i: Measuring inaccuracy. Philosophy of Science, 77(2), 201–235.
Levi, I. (1987). The demons of decision. The Monist, 70(2), 193–211.
Levinstein, B.A. (2012). Leitgeb and pettigrew on accuracy and updating. Philosophy of Science, 79(3), 413–424.
Lukits, S. (2013). The principle of maximum entropy and a problem in probability kinematics. Synthese, 1–23.
MacKay, D. (2003). Information theory, inference and learning algorithms. Cambridge: Cambridge.
Maher, P. (1992). Diachronic rationality. Philosophy of Science, 120–141.
Marschak, J. (1959). Remarks on the economics of information. Technical Report, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
McCarthy, J. (1956). Measures of the value of information. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 42(9), 654–655.
Miller, D. (1984). A geometry of logic. In H. Skala, S. Termini, & E. Trillas (Eds.) Aspects of Vagueness (pp. 91–104). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Mormann, T. (2005). Geometry of logic and truth approximation. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 83(1), 431–454.
Paul, L.A. (2016). Transformative experience. Oxford: Oxford University.
Pemberton, M., & Rau, N. (2016). Mathematics for economists: An introductory textbook. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Pettigrew, R. (2016). Accuracy and the laws of credence. Oxford: Oxford University.
Predd, J., Seiringer, R., Lieb, E., Osherson, D., Poor, H.V., & Kulkarni, S. (2009). Probabilistic coherence and proper scoring rules. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 55(10), 4786–4792.
Rockafellar, R. (1997). Convex analysis. Princeton: Princeton University.
Savage, L. (1971). Elicitation of personal probabilities and expectations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66(336), 783–801.
Selten, R. (1998). Axiomatic characterization of the quadratic scoring rule. Experimental Economics, 1(1), 43–62.
Shannon, C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(1), 379–423, 623–656.
Skyrms, B. (1986). Dynamic coherence. In Advances in the Statistical Sciences: Foundations of Statistical Inference (pp. 233–243). Springer.
Talbott, W.J. (1991). Two principles of bayesian epistemology. Philosophical Studies, 62(2), 135–150.
Tobler, W. (1975). Spatial interaction patterns. Schloss Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
van Ommen, S., Hendriks, P., Gilbers, D., van Heuven, V., & Gooskens, C. (2013). Is diachronic lenition a factor in the asymmetry in intelligibility between danish and swedish?. Lingua, 137, 193–213.
Wroński, L. (2016). Belief update methods and rules: Some comparisons. Ergo, 3(11).
Acknowledgments
I want to thank Paul Bartha at the University of British Columbia and Franz Huber at the University of Toronto for their support as I worked on this paper.
Funding
The author received financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, SSHRC award 756-2017-0286.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Ethical Approval
The author declares that no ethical approval was needed for this paper and the study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration.
Informed Consent
The author declares that no informed consent was needed for this paper.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article belongs to the Topical Collection: EPSA2019: Selected papers from the biennial conference in Geneva
Guest Editors: Anouk Barberousse, Richard Dawid, Marcel Weber
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lukits, S. Symmetry and partial belief geometry. Euro Jnl Phil Sci 11, 79 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-021-00398-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-021-00398-x