Conclusion
De Finetti was a strong proponent of allowing 0 credal probabilities to be assigned to serious possibilities. I have sought to show that (pace Shimony) strict coherence can be obeyed provided that its scope of applicability is restricted to partitions into states generated by finitely many ultimate payoffs. When countable additivity is obeyed, a restricted version of ISC can be applied to partitions generated by countably many ultimate payoffs. Once this is appreciated, perhaps the compelling character of the Shimony argument will be less overwhelming and the attractiveness of de Finetti's more permissive attitude will become more apparent.
I want to push the permissive tendency in de Finetti still further. It seems doubtful that RUIWC should be required as de Finetti apparently suggested. It is also excessively dogmatic and restrictive to require that the credal states of ideally situated rational agents be numerically definite (Levi 1974, 1980). And de Finetti's rejection of objectivism in statistics overreached itself when he dismissed objective probabilities as meaningless metaphysical artefacts (Levi 1986). In this respect, the philosophically most important lessons de Finetti has to teach us are to be found not in his celebrated representation theorem but in his discussions of the relations between 0-probability and possibility, conditional probability and countable additivity. Perhaps, the technical issues involved are remote and pedantic. But the attitude de Finetti sought to inculcate is of profound importance.
Similar content being viewed by others
Bibliography
Arrow, K. J.: 1965,Aspects of the Theory of Risk Bearing, Yrjö Janssonin Säätiö, Helsinki.
Arrow, K. J.: 1974, ‘Optimal Insurance and Generalized Deductibles’,Scandinavian Acturial Journal 1, 1–42.
Billingsley, P.: 1986,Probability and Measure, 2nd ed., John Wiley, New York.
De Finetti, B.: 1982, ‘On the Axiomatization of Probability Theory’, a translation into English of a paper published in Italian in 1949 which appears as Chapter 5 ofProbability Induction and Statistics, John Wiley, New York.
De Finetti, B.: 1984,Theory of Probability, vol. 1, John Wiley, New York.
Dréze, J. H.: 1958,Individual Decision Under Partially Controllable Uncertainty, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, New York.
Dréze, J. H.: 1987, ‘Decision Theory with Moral Hazard and State-Dependent Preferences’, chapter 2 ofEssays on Economic Decisions under Uncertainty, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Field, H.: 1977, ‘Logic, Meaning and Conceptual Role’,Journal of Philosophy, 379–409.
Harper, W. L.: 1976, ‘Rational Belief Change, Popper Functions and Counterfactuals’, in Harper and Hooker (eds.),Foundations of Probability Theory, Statistical Inference and Statistical Theories of Science, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 73–115.
Jeffrey, R. C.: 1965,The Logic of Decision, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Lewis, D.: 1980, ‘A Subjectivist's Guide to Objective Chance’, in R. C. Jeffrey (ed.),Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, vol. 2, California University Press, California.
Levi, I.: 1974, ‘On Indeterminate Probability’,Journal of Philosophy 71, 391–418.
Levi, I.: 1978, ‘Coherence, Regularity and Conditional Probability’,Theory and Decision 9, 1–15.
Levi, I.: 1980,Enterprise of Knowledge, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Levi, I.: 1986, ‘Probability Exists (but just barely)!’ in R. B. Marcus, G. J. W. Dorn and P. Weingartner (eds.),Methodology and Philosophy of Science VII, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Schervish, M. J., T. Seidenfeld and J. B. Kadane: 1984, ‘The Extent of Non-Conglomerability of Finitely Additive Probabilities’,Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie u. verw. Gebiete 66, 205–26.
Seidenfeld, T. and M. J. Schervish: ‘A Conflict Between Finite Additivity and Avoiding Dutch Book’,Philosophy of Science 50, 398–412.
Shimony, A.: 1955, ‘Coherence and the Axioms of Confirmation’,Journal of Symbolic Logic 20, 1–28.
Stalnaker, R.: 1970, ‘Probability and Conditionals’,Philosophy of Science 37, 64–86.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Thanks are due to Teddy Seidenfeld whose comments have improved this paper substantially. He is not to blame for its lingering defects.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Levi, I. Possibility and probability. Erkenntnis 31, 365–386 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01236570
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01236570