Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 181, Issue 2, pp 317–352 | Cite as

Reasoning defeasibly about probabilities

  • John L. Pollock
Article

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 Epistemology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bacchus F. (1990) Representing and reasoning with probabilistic knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Braithwaite R. B. (1953) Scientific explanation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Carnap R. (1950) The logical foundations of probability. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Carnap R. (1952) The continuum of inductive methods. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. de Finetti B. (1974) Theory of probability (Vol. 1). Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Dombi J. (1982) Basic concepts for a theory of evaluation: The aggregative operator. European Journal of Operational Research 10: 282–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fisher R. A. (1922) On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 222: 309–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fodor J., Yager R., Rybalov A. (1997) Structure of uninorms. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 5: 411–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodman N. (1955) Fact, fiction, and forecast. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Halpern J. Y. (1990) An analysis of first-order logics of probability. Artificial Intelligence 46: 311–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harman G. (1986) Change in view. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Jeffrey R. (1983) The logic of decision. (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Kneale W. (1949) Probability and induction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Kushmerick N., Hanks S., Weld D. (1995) An algorithm for probabilistic planning. Artificial Intelligence 76: 239–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kyburg H. Jr. (1961) Probability and the logic of rational belief. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CTGoogle Scholar
  19. Kyburg H. Jr. (1974a) The logical foundations of statistical inference. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  20. Kyburg H. Jr. (1974b) Propensities and probabilities. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 321–353Google Scholar
  21. Levi I. (1980) The enterprise of knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. Pearl J. (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CAGoogle Scholar
  23. Pollock J. L. (1983) A theory of direct inference. Theory and Decision 15: 29–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pollock J. L. (1984a) Foundations for direct inference. Theory and Decision 17: 221–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pollock J. L. (1984b) Foundations of philosophical semantics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  26. Pollock J. L. (1990) Nomic probability and the foundations of induction. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Pollock J. L. (1995) Cognitive carpentry. Bradford/MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  28. Pollock J. L. (2006a) Thinking about acting: Logical foundations for rational decision making. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Popper, K. (1938). A set of independent axioms for probability. Mind, 47, 275ff.Google Scholar
  31. Popper K. (1956) The propensity interpretation of probability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10: 25–42Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Popper K. (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Reichenbach, H. (1949). A theory of probability. Berkeley: University of California Press (original German edition 1935).Google Scholar
  35. Reiter, R., & Criscuolo, G. (1981). On interacting defaults. In IJCAI81 (pp. 94–100).Google Scholar
  36. Renyi A. (1955) On a new axiomatic theory of probability. Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 6: 285–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Russell B. (1948) Human knowledge: Its scope and limits. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Savage L. (1954) The foundations of statistics. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Shafer G. (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  40. Sklar L. (1970) Is propensity a dispositional concept?. Journal of Philosophy 67: 355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sklar L. (1973) Unfair to frequencies. Journal of Philosophy 70: 41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Skyrms B. (1980) Causal necessity. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  43. van Fraassen B. (1981) The scientific image. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Venn J. (1888). The logic of chance (3rd ed.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • John L. Pollock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations