Reasoning defeasibly about probabilities
- 128 Downloads
- 2 Citations
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.
Keywords
Probability Statistical independence Defeasible reasoning Direct inference Nomic probability EpistemologyPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Bacchus F. (1990) Representing and reasoning with probabilistic knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Bacchus F., Grove A. J., Halpern J. Y., Koller D. (1996) From statistical knowledge bases to degrees of belief. Artificial Intelligence 87: 75–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Braithwaite R. B. (1953) Scientific explanation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Carnap R. (1950) The logical foundations of probability. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Carnap R. (1952) The continuum of inductive methods. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- de Finetti B. (1974) Theory of probability (Vol. 1). Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Dombi J. (1982) Basic concepts for a theory of evaluation: The aggregative operator. European Journal of Operational Research 10: 282–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fisher R. A. (1922) On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 222: 309–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fodor J., Yager R., Rybalov A. (1997) Structure of uninorms. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 5: 411–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Goodman N. (1955) Fact, fiction, and forecast. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Halpern J. Y. (1990) An analysis of first-order logics of probability. Artificial Intelligence 46: 311–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Harman G. (1986) Change in view. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle 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 113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jeffrey R. (1983) The logic of decision. (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle 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: 129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kneale W. (1949) Probability and induction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Kushmerick N., Hanks S., Weld D. (1995) An algorithm for probabilistic planning. Artificial Intelligence 76: 239–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kyburg H. Jr. (1961) Probability and the logic of rational belief. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CTGoogle Scholar
- Kyburg H. Jr. (1974a) The logical foundations of statistical inference. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- Kyburg H. Jr. (1974b) Propensities and probabilities. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 321–353Google Scholar
- Levi I. (1980) The enterprise of knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Pearl J. (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CAGoogle Scholar
- Pollock J. L. (1983) A theory of direct inference. Theory and Decision 15: 29–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pollock J. L. (1984a) Foundations for direct inference. Theory and Decision 17: 221–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pollock J. L. (1984b) Foundations of philosophical semantics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Pollock J. L. (1990) Nomic probability and the foundations of induction. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Pollock J. L. (1995) Cognitive carpentry. Bradford/MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Pollock J. L. (2006a) Thinking about acting: Logical foundations for rational decision making. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Pollock J. L. (2006b) Defeasible reasoning. In: Adler J., Rips L. (eds) Reasoning: Studies of human inference and its foundations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Popper, K. (1938). A set of independent axioms for probability. Mind, 47, 275ff.Google Scholar
- Popper K. (1956) The propensity interpretation of probability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10: 25–42Google 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 65–70Google Scholar
- Popper K. (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Reichenbach, H. (1949). A theory of probability. Berkeley: University of California Press (original German edition 1935).Google Scholar
- Reiter, R., & Criscuolo, G. (1981). On interacting defaults. In IJCAI81 (pp. 94–100).Google Scholar
- Renyi A. (1955) On a new axiomatic theory of probability. Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 6: 285–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Russell B. (1948) Human knowledge: Its scope and limits. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Savage L. (1954) The foundations of statistics. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Shafer G. (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Sklar L. (1970) Is propensity a dispositional concept?. Journal of Philosophy 67: 355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sklar L. (1973) Unfair to frequencies. Journal of Philosophy 70: 41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Skyrms B. (1980) Causal necessity. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
- van Fraassen B. (1981) The scientific image. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Venn J. (1888). The logic of chance (3rd ed.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar