Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 43, Issue 2–3, pp 283–302 | Cite as

Defeasible Conditionalization

Article

Abstract

The applicability of Bayesian conditionalization in setting one’s posterior probability for a proposition, α, is limited to cases where the value of a corresponding prior probability, PPRI(α|∧E), is available, where ∧E represents one’s complete body of evidence. In order to extend probability updating to cases where the prior probabilities needed for Bayesian conditionalization are unavailable, I introduce an inference schema, defeasible conditionalization, which allows one to update one’s personal probability in a proposition by conditioning on a proposition that represents a proper subset of one’s complete body of evidence. While defeasible conditionalization has wider applicability than standard Bayesian conditionalization (since it may be used when the value of a relevant prior probability, PPRI(α|∧E), is unavailable), there are circumstances under which some instances of defeasible conditionalization are unreasonable. To address this difficulty, I outline the conditions under which instances of defeasible conditionalization are defeated. To conclude the article, I suggest that the prescriptions of direct inference and statistical induction can be encoded within the proposed system of probability updating, by the selection of intuitively reasonable prior probabilities.

Keywords

Conditionalization Probability updating Principle of total evidence Defeasible inference Direct inference Induction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bacchus, F. (1990). Representing and reasoning with probabilistic knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bacchus, F., Grove, A., Halpern, J., & Koller, D. (1996). From statistical knowledge bases to degrees of belief. Artificial Intelligence, 87, 75–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carnap, R. (1962). Logical foundations of probability (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chisholm, R. (1957). Perceiving. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Good, I. (1962). Subjective probability as the measure of a non measurable set. In E. Nagel, P. Suppes, & A. Tarski (Eds.), Logic, methodology and the philosophy of science (pp. 319–329). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halpern, J. (2003). Reasoning about uncertainty. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hart, H. (1948). The ascription of responsibility and rights. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hempel, C. (1968). Lawlikeness and maximal specificity in probabilistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 35(2), 116–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horty, J. (2002). Skepticism and floating conclusions. Artificial Intelligence, 135, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horty, J. (2007). Defaults with priorities. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 36, 367–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (2006). Scientific reasoning: the Bayesian approach (3rd ed.). Chicago: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jaynes, E. (1968). Prior probabilities. IEEE Transactions On Systems Science and Cybernetics, 4(3), 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jeffrey, R. (1983). The logic of decision (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaplan, M. (1983). Decision theory as philosophy. Philosophy of Science, 50, 549–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaplan, M. (2010). In defense of modest probabilism. Synthese, 176, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keynes, J. (1921). A treatise on probability. London: Macmillan and Company.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koopman, B. (1940). The bases of probability. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 46, 763–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kyburg, H. (1956). The justification of induction. Journal of Philosophy, 53, 394–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kyburg, H. (1961). Probability and the logic of rational belief. Middletow: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kyburg, H. (1974). The logical foundations of statistical inference. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kyburg, H., & Teng, C. (2001). Uncertain inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levi, I. (1974). On indeterminate probabilities. Journal of Philosophy, 71, 391–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewis, D. (1980). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. In R. C. Jeffrey (Ed.), Studies in inductive logic and probability, Vol II. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maher, P. (1993). Betting on theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McCarthy, J. (1980). Circumscription - a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13, 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McDermott, D., & Doyle, J. (1980). Non-monotonic logic I. Artificial Intelligence, 13, 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McGrew, T. (2001). Direct inference and the problem of induction. The Monist, 84, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Osherson, D. (2002). Order dependence and Jeffrey conditionalization. Unpublished paper available at: http://www.princeton.edu/~osherson/papers/jeff3.pdf.
  29. 29.
    Paris, J., & Vencovská, A. (1990). A note on the inevitability of maximum entropy. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 4, 183–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Paris, J., & Vencovská, A. (1997). In defence of the maximum entropy inference process. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 17, 77–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pollock, J. (1967). Criteria and our knowledge of the material world. Philosophical Review, 76, 28–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pollock, J. (1990). Nomic probability and the foundations of induction. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pollock, J. (1995). Cognitive carpentry: a blueprint for how to build a person. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reichenbach, H. (1935). Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre: eine Untersuchung über die logischen Und mathematischen Grundlagen der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. English translation: (1949). The theory of probability, an inquiry into the logical and mathematical foundations of the calculus of probability. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13, 81–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics. New York: SUNY Albany Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schurz, G. (1997). Probabilistic default reasoning based on relevance and irrelevance assumptions. In D. Gabbay et al. (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative practical reasoning (pp. 536–553). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schurz, G. (2005). Non-monotonic reasoning from an evolutionary viewpoint: ontic, logical and cognitive foundations. Synthese, 146(1–2), 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Smith, C. (1961). Consistency in statistical inference and decision. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 23, 1–37.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stove, D. (1986). The rationality of induction. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Thorn, P. (2011). Undercutting defeat via reference properties of differing Arity: a reply to Pust. Analysis, 71(4), 662–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thorn, P. (2012). Two problems of direct inference. Erkenntnis, 76(3), 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Toulmin, S. (1958). The place of reason in ethics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Touretzky, D., Horty, J., & Thomason, R. (1987). A clash of intuitions: the current state of monotonic multiple inheritance systems. In Proceedings of the Tenth international Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence pp. 476–482.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Van Fraassen, B. (1989). Laws and symmetry. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Van Frasssen, B. (1990). Figures in a probability landscape. In J. M. Dunn & A. Gupta (Eds.), Truth and consequences (pp. 345–356). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Venn, J. (1866). The logic of chance. New York: Chelsea Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wagner, C. (2002). Probability kinematics and commutativity. Philosophy of Science, 69(2), 266–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Walley, P. (1991). Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Williams, D. (1947). The ground of induction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Williamson, J. (2007). Motivating objective Bayesianism: from empirical constraints to objective probabilities. In W. L. Harper & G. R. Wheeler (Eds.), Probability and inference: essays in honor of Henry E. Kyburg Jr. London: College Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophisches InstitutUniversity of DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations