Skip to main content
Log in

Reasoning defeasibly about probabilities

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In concrete applications of probability, statistical investigation gives us knowledge of some probabilities, but we generally want to know many others that are not directly revealed by our data. For instance, we may know prob(P/Q) (the probability of P given Q) and prob(P/R), but what we really want is prob(P/Q&R), and we may not have the data required to assess that directly. The probability calculus is of no help here. Given prob(P/Q) and prob(P/R), it is consistent with the probability calculus for prob(P/Q&R) to have any value between 0 and 1. Is there any way to make a reasonable estimate of the value of prob(P/Q&R)? A related problem occurs when probability practitioners adopt undefended assumptions of statistical independence simply on the basis of not seeing any connection between two propositions. This is common practice, but its justification has eluded probability theorists, and researchers are typically apologetic about making such assumptions. Is there any way to defend the practice? This paper shows that on a certain conception of probability—nomic probability—there are principles of “probable probabilities” that license inferences of the above sort. These are principles telling us that although certain inferences from probabilities to probabilities are not deductively valid, nevertheless the second-order probability of their yielding correct results is 1. This makes it defeasibly reasonable to make the inferences. Thus I argue that it is defeasibly reasonable to assume statistical independence when we have no information to the contrary. And I show that there is a function Y(r, s, a) such that if prob(P/Q) = r, prob(P/R) = s, and prob(P/U) = a (where U is our background knowledge) then it is defeasibly reasonable to expect that prob(P/Q&R) = Y(r, s, a). Numerous other defeasible inferences are licensed by similar principles of probable probabilities. This has the potential to greatly enhance the usefulness of probabilities in practical application.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bacchus F. (1990) Representing and reasoning with probabilistic knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacchus F., Grove A. J., Halpern J. Y., Koller D. (1996) From statistical knowledge bases to degrees of belief. Artificial Intelligence 87: 75–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite R. B. (1953) Scientific explanation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnap R. (1950) The logical foundations of probability. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnap R. (1952) The continuum of inductive methods. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • de Finetti B. (1974) Theory of probability (Vol. 1). Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dombi J. (1982) Basic concepts for a theory of evaluation: The aggregative operator. European Journal of Operational Research 10: 282–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R. A. (1922) On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 222: 309–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor J., Yager R., Rybalov A. (1997) Structure of uninorms. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 5: 411–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman N. (1955) Fact, fiction, and forecast. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern J. Y. (1990) An analysis of first-order logics of probability. Artificial Intelligence 46: 311–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harman G. (1986) Change in view. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka J. (1966) A two-dimensional continuum of inductive methods. In: Hintikka J., Suppes P. (eds) Aspects of inductive logic. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 113–132

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey R. (1983) The logic of decision. (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Klement E. P., Mesiar R., Pap E. (1996) On the relationship of associative compensatory operators to triangular norms and conorms. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 4: 129–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneale W. (1949) Probability and induction. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kushmerick N., Hanks S., Weld D. (1995) An algorithm for probabilistic planning. Artificial Intelligence 76: 239–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyburg H. Jr. (1961) Probability and the logic of rational belief. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyburg H. Jr. (1974a) The logical foundations of statistical inference. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyburg H. Jr. (1974b) Propensities and probabilities. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 321–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi I. (1980) The enterprise of knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl J. (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock J. L. (1983) A theory of direct inference. Theory and Decision 15: 29–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock J. L. (1984a) Foundations for direct inference. Theory and Decision 17: 221–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock J. L. (1984b) Foundations of philosophical semantics. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock J. L. (1990) Nomic probability and the foundations of induction. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock J. L. (1995) Cognitive carpentry. Bradford/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock J. L. (2006a) Thinking about acting: Logical foundations for rational decision making. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock J. L. (2006b) Defeasible reasoning. In: Adler J., Rips L. (eds) Reasoning: Studies of human inference and its foundations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1938). A set of independent axioms for probability. Mind, 47, 275ff.

  • Popper K. (1956) The propensity interpretation of probability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10: 25–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper K. (1957) The propensity interpretation of the calculus of probability, and the quantum theory. In: Körner S. (eds) Observation and interpretation. Academic Press, New York, pp 65–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper K. (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, H. (1949). A theory of probability. Berkeley: University of California Press (original German edition 1935).

  • Reiter, R., & Criscuolo, G. (1981). On interacting defaults. In IJCAI81 (pp. 94–100).

  • Renyi A. (1955) On a new axiomatic theory of probability. Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 6: 285–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell B. (1948) Human knowledge: Its scope and limits. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage L. (1954) The foundations of statistics. Dover, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer G. (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Sklar L. (1970) Is propensity a dispositional concept?. Journal of Philosophy 67: 355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sklar L. (1973) Unfair to frequencies. Journal of Philosophy 70: 41–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms B. (1980) Causal necessity. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • van Fraassen B. (1981) The scientific image. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Venn J. (1888). The logic of chance (3rd ed.). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

John L. Pollock—Deceased.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pollock, J.L. Reasoning defeasibly about probabilities. Synthese 181, 317–352 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9804-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9804-5

Keywords

Navigation