Studia Logica

, Volume 106, Issue 3, pp 615–636 | Cite as

Eliciting Uncertainties: A Two Structure Approach

  • Timothy Childers
  • Ondrej MajerEmail author


We recast subjective probabilities by rejecting behaviourist accounts of belief by explicitly distinguishing between judgements of uncertainty and expressions of those judgements. We argue that this entails rejecting that orderings of uncertainty be complete. This in turn leads naturally to several generalizations of the probability calculus. We define probability-like functions over incomplete algebras that reflect a subject’s incomplete judgements of uncertainty. These functions can be further generalized to (partial) inner and outer measures that reflect approximate elicitations.


Subjective probability Elicitation Foundations of probability Partial probability functions 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors wish to thank Colin Howson, Peter Milne, Samuel Fletcher, Jeff Paris and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. Work on this paper was supported by grant no. GA16-15621S of the Czech Science Foundation.


  1. 1.
    Chisholm, R., Perceiving: A Philosophical Study, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1957.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Christensen, D., Putting Logic in its Place, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeGroot, M., Optimal Statistical Decisions, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eriksson, L., and A. Hájek, What are degrees of belief. Studia Logica 86:183–213, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fishburn, P., The axioms of subjective probability. Statistical Science 1:335–345, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    French, S., On the axiomatisation of subjective probabilities. Theory and Decision 14:19–33, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geach, P., Mental Acts: Their Content and Their Objects, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1957.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gillies, D., Philosophical Theories of Probability, Routledge, London, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Howson, C., and P. Urbach, Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach, Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Joyce, J. M., Accuracy and coherence: Prospects for an alethic epistemology of partial belief, in F. Huber and C. Schmidt-Petri (eds.), Degrees of Belief, Springer, Berlin, 2009, pp. 263–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koopman, B. O., The bases of probability. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 46:763–774, 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krantz, D. H., R. D. Luce, P. Suppes, and A. Tversky, Foundations of Measurement: Vol 1: Additive and Polynomial Representations, Academic Press, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marra, V., The problem of artificial precision in theories of Vagueness a note on the Rôle of maximal consistency. Erkenntnis 79:1015–1026, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mundici, D., Bookmaking over infinite-valued events. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 43:223–240, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Narens, L., Theories in Probability: An Examination of Logical and Qualitative Foundations, World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramsey, F. P., Truth and probability, in R. B. Braithwaite (ed.), The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1931.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Savage, L. J., The Foundations of Statistics, 2nd ed., Dover Publications, New York, 1972.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schick, F., Dutch bookies and money pumps. The Journal of Philosophy 83:112–119, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spetzler, C. S., and C.-A. S. Stael Von Holstein, Probability encoding in decision analysis. Management Science 22:340–358, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd rev. ed, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1947.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyCzech Academy of SciencesPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations