Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 84, Issue 1, pp 1–19 | Cite as

Chance, Resiliency, and Humean Supervenience

  • Patryk Dziurosz-SerafinowiczEmail author
Original Research
  • 57 Downloads

Abstract

This paper shows how a particular resiliency-centered approach to chance lends support for two conditions characterizing chance. The first condition says that the present chance of some proposition A conditional on the proposition about some later chance of A should be set equal to that later chance of A. The second condition requires the present chance of some proposition A to be equal to the weighted average of possible later chances of A. I first introduce, motivate, and make precise a resiliency-centered approach to chance whose basic idea is that any chance distribution should be maximally invariant under variation of experimental factors. Second, I show that any present chance distribution that violates the two conditions can be replaced by another present chance distribution that satisfies them and is more resilient under variation of experimental factors. This shows that the two conditions are an essential feature of chances that maximize resiliency. Finally, I explore the relationship between the idea of resilient chances so understood and so-called Humean accounts of chance—one of the most promising recent philosophical accounts of chance.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to especially thank Jan-Willem Romeijn, Richard Pettigrew, and Rafal Urbaniak for incredibly helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. I am also indebted to the anonymous referees of Erkenntnis for detailed comments.

References

  1. Arntzenius, F., & Hall, N. (2003). On what we know about chance. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 54(2), 171–179.Google Scholar
  2. Bana, G. (2016). On the formal consistency of the principal principle. Philosophy of Science, 83(5), 988–1001.Google Scholar
  3. Banerjee, A., Merugu, S., Dhillon, I. S., & Ghosh, J. (2005). Clustering with Bregman divergences. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6, 1705–1749.Google Scholar
  4. Bigelow, J., Collins, J., & Pargetter, R. (1993). The big bad bug: What are the humean’s chances? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 44(3), 443–462.Google Scholar
  5. Briggs, R. (2009). The big bad bug bites anti-realists about chance. Synthese, 167(1), 81–92.Google Scholar
  6. Frigg, R., & Hoefer, C. (2015). The best humean system for statistical mechanics. Erkenntnis, 80(3), 551–574.Google Scholar
  7. Gaifman, H. (1988). A theory of higher order probabilities. In B. Skyrms & W. Harper (Eds.), Causation, chance, and credence (Vol. 1, pp. 191–219). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Ismael, J. (1996). What chances could not be. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47(1), 79–91.Google Scholar
  9. Lewis, D. (1986). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. In D. Lewis (Ed.), Philosophical papers, (Vol. 2, pp. 83–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lewis, D. (1994). Humean supervenience debugged. Mind, 103(412), 473–490.Google Scholar
  11. Loewer, B. (2001). Determinism and chance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B, 32(4), 609–620.Google Scholar
  12. Lyon, A. (2011). Deterministic probability: Neither chance nor credence. Synthese, 182(3), 413–432.Google Scholar
  13. Mitchell, S. D. (2000). Dimensions of scientific law. Philosophy of Science, 67(2), 242–265.Google Scholar
  14. Pettigrew, R., & Titelbaum, M. G. (2014). Deference done right. Philosophers’ Imprint, 14(35), 1–19.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Rédei, M., & Gyenis, Z. (2016). Measure theoretic analysis of consistency of the principal principle. Philosophy of Science, 83(5), 972–987.Google Scholar
  17. Schaffer, J. (2003). Principled chances. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 54(1), 27–41.Google Scholar
  18. Schaffer, J. (2007). Deterministic chance? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 58(2), 113–140.Google Scholar
  19. Skyrms, B. (1977). Resiliency, propensities, and causal necessity. The Journal of Philosophy, 74(11), 704–713.Google Scholar
  20. Skyrms, B. (1978). Statistical laws and personal propensities. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association (pp. 551–562).Google Scholar
  21. Skyrms, B. (1980). Causal necessity: A pragmatic investigation of the necessity of laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Skyrms, B. (1984). Pragmatism and empiricism. Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. van Fraassen, B. (1989). Laws and symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Vranas, P. (2002). Who’s afraid of undermining? Why the principal principle might not contradict humean supervenience. Erkenntnis, 57(2), 151–174.Google Scholar
  25. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and JournalismUniversity of GdanskGdanskPoland

Personalised recommendations