Synthese

, Volume 163, Issue 3, pp 341–356 | Cite as

Objective Bayesianism with predicate languages

Article

Abstract

Objective Bayesian probability is often defined over rather simple domains, e.g., finite event spaces or propositional languages. This paper investigates the extension of objective Bayesianism to first-order logical languages. It is argued that the objective Bayesian should choose a probability function, from all those that satisfy constraints imposed by background knowledge, that is closest to a particular frequency-induced probability function which generalises the λ = 0 function of Carnap’s continuum of inductive methods.

Keywords

Bayesianism Objective Bayesianism Bayesian epistemology Formal epistemology Inductive logic Probabilistic logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bar-Hillel Y. (1951). A note on state-descriptions. Philosophical Studies 2, 72–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billingsley, P. (1979). Probability and measure, 3rd (1995) ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Carnap R. (1950). Logical foundations of probability. London, Routledge and Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
  4. Carnap R. (1951). The problem of relations in inductive logic. Philosophical Studies 2, 75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carnap R. (1952). The continuum of inductive methods. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Dawid, A. P. (1982). The well-calibrated Bayesian. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77, 604–613. With discussion.Google Scholar
  7. Dias P.M.C., Shimony A. (1981). A critique of Jaynes’ maximum entropy principle. Advances in Applied Mathematics 2(2): 172–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Friedman K., Shimony A. (1971). Jaynes’s maximum entropy prescription and probability theory. Journal of Statistical Physics 3(4): 381–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gaifman H. (1964). Concerning measures in first order calculi. Israel Journal of Mathematics 2, 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gillies D. (2000). Philosophical theories of probability. London and New York, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Hill M., Paris J., Wilmers G. (2002). Some observations on induction in predicate probabilistic reasoning. Journal of Philosophical Logic 31, 43–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson W.E. (1932). Probability: The deductive and inductive problems. Mind 41(164): 409–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kass R.E., Wasserman L. (1996). The selection of prior distributions by formal rules. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91, 1343–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keynes J.M. (1921). A treatise on probability. London: Macmillan (1948).Google Scholar
  15. Kullback S., Leibler R.(1951). On information and sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22, 79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Landes, J., Paris, J., & Vencovská, A. (2007). The principle of conformity and spectrum exchangeability. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Foundations of the Formal Sciences: Reasoning about Probabilities and Probabilistic Reasoning, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  17. Nix, C. (2005). Probabilistic induction in the predicate calculus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  18. Nix C., Paris J. (2007). A note on binary inductive logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36, 735–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Paris J.B. (1994). The uncertain reasoner’s companion. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Paris J.B., Vencovská A. (2003). The emergence of reasons conjecture. Journal of Applied Logic 1(3–4): 167–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Paris, J. B., & Vencovská, A. (2007). From unary to binary inductive logic. In Proceedings of the Second Indian Conference on Logic and its Relationship with Other Disciplines, IIT Bombay.Google Scholar
  22. Seidenfeld T. (1979). Why I am not an objective Bayesian. Theory and Decision 11, 413–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vencovská, A. (2006). Binary induction and Carnap’s continuum. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Uncertainty Processing (WUPES), Mikulov. http://www.mtr.utia.cas.cz/wupes06/articles/.Google Scholar
  25. Wagon S. (1985). The Banach-Tarski paradox. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Williams P.M. (1980). Bayesian conditionalisation and the principle of minimum information. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 31, 131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Williamson J. (1999). Countable additivity and subjective probability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50(3): 401–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Williamson J. (2002). Probability logic. In: Gabbay D., Johnson R., Ohlbach H.J., Woods J. (eds). Handbook of the logic of argument and inference: The turn toward the practical. Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 397–424Google Scholar
  29. Williamson J. (2005a). Bayesian nets and causality: Philosophical and computational foundations. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Williamson J. (2005b). Objective Bayesian nets. In: Artemov S., Barringer H., d’Avila Garcez A.S., Lamb L.C., Woods J. (eds). We will show them! Essays in honour of Dov Gabbay (Vol. 2). London, College Publications, pp. 713–730Google Scholar
  31. Williamson J. (2007a). Inductive influence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58, 689–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williamson J. (2007b). Motivating objective Bayesianism: From empirical constraints to objective probabilities. In: Harper W.L., Wheeler G.R. (eds). Probability and inference: Essays in honour of Henry E. Kyburg Jr. London, College Publications, pp. 151–179Google Scholar
  33. Williamson, J. (2007c). Philosophies of probability: Objective Bayesianism and its challenges. In A. Irvine (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of mathematics (Vol. 4). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  34. Williamson, J. (2008). Objective Bayesianism, Bayesian conditionalisation and voluntarism. Synthese (in press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, SECLUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations