, Volume 192, Issue 5, pp 1527–1542 | Cite as

The Bayesian who knew too much



In several papers, John Norton has argued that Bayesianism cannot handle ignorance adequately due to its inability to distinguish between neutral and disconfirming evidence. He argued that this inability sows confusion in, e.g., anthropic reasoning in cosmology or the Doomsday argument, by allowing one to draw unwarranted conclusions from a lack of knowledge. Norton has suggested criteria for a candidate for representation of neutral support. Imprecise credences (families of credal probability functions) constitute a Bayesian-friendly framework that allows us to avoid inadequate neutral priors and better handle ignorance. The imprecise model generally agrees with Norton’s representation of ignorance but requires that his criterion of self-duality be reformulated or abandoned.


Bayesian confirmation theory Imprecise credence Ignorance Indifference Principle of indifference Doomsday argument Anthropic reasoning 



I am grateful to Wayne Myrvold for initial discussions, Jim Joyce and John Norton for stimulating exchanges. I am indebted to Chris Smeenk for many comments and suggestions. I also thank an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments.


  1. Aguirre, A. (2001). Cold big-bang cosmology as a counterexample to several anthropic arguments. Physical Review D, 64(8), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Augustin, T., Coolen, F. P., de Cooman, G., & Troffaes, M. C. (Eds.). (2014). Introduction to imprecise probabilities. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Benétreau-Dupin, Y. (forthcoming). Blurring out cosmic puzzles. Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
  4. Bostrom, N. (2002). Anthropic bias: Observation selection effects in science and philosophy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Cozman, F. G. (2012). Sets of probability distributions, independence, and convexity. Synthese, 186(2), 577–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Cooman, G., & Miranda, E. (2007). Symmetry of models versus models of symmetry. In W. L. Harper & G. Wheeler (Eds.), Probability and inference. Essays in honour of Henry E. Kyburg Jr (pp. 67–149). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  7. de Cooman, G., Miranda, E., & Quaeghebeur, E. (2009, February). Representation insensitivity in immediate prediction under exchangeability. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 50(2), 204–216.Google Scholar
  8. Gott, J. R. (1994). Future prospects discussed. Nature, 368(March), 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huntley, N., Hable, R., & Troffaes, M. C. (2014). Decision making. In T. Augustin, F. P. Coolen, G. de Cooman, & M. C. Troffaes (Eds.), Introduction to imprecise probabilities (pp. 190–206). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Joyce, J. M. (2005). How probabilities reflect evidence. Philosophical Perspectives, 19, 153–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Joyce, J. M. (2010). A defense of imprecise credences in inference and decision making. Philosophical Perspectives, 24(1), 281–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kyburg, H. (1978). Subjective probability: Criticisms, reflections, and problems. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 7(1), 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levi, I. (1974). On indeterminate probabilities. The Journal of Philosophy, 71(13).Google Scholar
  14. Miranda, E., & de Cooman, G. (2014). Structural judgements. In T. Augustin, F. P. Coolen, G. de Cooman, & M. C. Troffaes (Eds.), Introduction to imprecise probabilities (pp. 190–206). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Moral, S. (2012, April). Imprecise probabilities for representing ignorance about a parameter. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 53(3), 347–362.Google Scholar
  16. Norton, J. D. (2007a). Disbelief as the dual of belief. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 21(3), 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Norton, J. D. (2007b). Probability disassembled. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 58(2), 141–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Norton, J. D. (2008). Ignorance and indifference. Philosophy of Science, 75(1), 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Norton, J. D. (2010). Cosmic confusions: Not supporting versus supporting not. Philosophy of Science, 77(4), 501–523.Google Scholar
  20. Piatti, A., Zaffalon, M., Trojani, F., & Hutter, M. (2009). Limits of learning about a categorical latent variable under prior near-ignorance. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 50(4), 597–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pogosian, L., Vilenkin, A., & Tegmark, M. (2004). Anthropic predictions for vacuum energy and neutrino masses. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 7(005), 1–17.Google Scholar
  22. Richmond, A. (2006). The doomsday argument. Philosophical Books, 47(2), 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rinard, S. (2013). Against radical credal imprecision. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 2(2), 157–165.Google Scholar
  24. Troffaes, M. (2007). Decision making under uncertainty using imprecise probabilities. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 45(1), 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vilenkin, A. (1995). Predictions from quantum cosmology. Physical Review Letters, 74(6), 4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Walley, P. (1991). Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weinberg, S. (1987). Anthropic bound on the cosmological constant. Physical Review Letters, 59(22), 2607–2610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weinberg, S. (2007). Living in the multiverse. In B. Carr (Ed.), Universe or multiverse? Chapter 2 (pp. 29–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Rotman Institute of PhilosophyWestern UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations