Probabilistic coherence measures: a psychological study of coherence assessment
- 230 Downloads
Over the years several non-equivalent probabilistic measures of coherence have been discussed in the philosophical literature. In this paper we examine these measures with respect to their empirical adequacy. Using test cases from the coherence literature as vignettes for psychological experiments we investigate whether the measures can predict the subjective coherence assessments of the participants. It turns out that the participants’ coherence assessments are best described by Roche’s (Insights from philosophy, jurisprudence and artificial intelligence, 2013) coherence measure based on Douven and Meijs’ (Synthese 156:405–425, 2007) average mutual support approach and the conditional probability.
KeywordsBayesian coherentism Probabilistic coherence measures Probabilistic support measures Test cases Experimental philosophy
We would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Arndt Bröder, Andreas Glöckner, Björn Meder, Michael Schippers and Mark Siebel for their contributions. We would also like to thank the participants of the Operationalization Workshop 2013 in Freiburg for helpful comments. This work was supported by grant SI 1731/1-1 to Mark Siebel and grant GL 632/3-1 and BR 2130/8-1 to Andreas Glöckner and Arndt Bröder from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) as part of the priority program “New Frameworks of Rationality” (SPP 1516).
- BonJour, L. (1985). The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2003). Bayesian epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Carnap, R. (1950). Logical foundations of probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Fitelson, B. (2004). Two technical corrections to my coherence measure. http://fitelson.org/coherence2.
- Gaifman, H. (1979). Subjective probability, natural predicates and Hempel’s ravens. Erkenntnis, 21, 105–147.Google Scholar
- Glass, D. H. (2002). Coherence, explanation, and Bayesian networks. In O’Neill, M., Sutcliffe, R. F. E., Ryan, C., Eaton, M., & Griffith, N. J. L. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence and cognitive science. 13th Irish conference, AICS 2002, Limerick, Ireland, September 2002 (pp. 177–182). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In K. Kremer & V. Macho (Eds.), Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003, GWDG Bericht 63 (pp. 79–93). Goettingen: Ges. fuer Wiss. Datenverarbeitung.Google Scholar
- Harris, A., & Hahn, U. (2009). Bayesian rationality in evaluating multiple testimonies: Incorporating the role of coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(5), 1366–1373.Google Scholar
- Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Joyce, J. (2008). Bayes’ theorem. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/bayes-theorem/.
- Keynes, J. (1921). A treatise on probability. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Kolmogorov, A. (1956). Foundations of the theory of probability. New York: AMS Chelsea Publishing.Google Scholar
- Koscholke, J. (2015). Evaluating test cases for probabilistic measures of coherence. Erkenntnis. doi: 10.1007/s10670-015-9734-1.
- Levi, I. (1962). Corroboration and rules of acceptance. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 13, 307–313.Google Scholar
- Meijs, W. (2005). Probabilistic measures of coherence. PhD thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
- Mortimer, H. (1988). The logic of induction. Paramus: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
- Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., & R Core Team (2013). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme.
- R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
- Rescher, N. (1973). The coherence theory of truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar