Abstract
In this paper we examine the thesis that the probability of the conditional is the conditional probability. Previous work by a number of authors has shown that in standard numerical probability theories, the addition of the thesis leads to triviality. We introduce very weak, comparative conditional probability structures and discuss some extremely simple constraints. We show that even in such a minimal context, if one adds the thesis that the probability of a conditional is the conditional probability, then one trivializes the theory. Another way of stating the result is that the conditional of conditional probability cannot be represented in the object language on pain of trivializing the theory.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, E.W.: 1975, The Logic of Conditionals, Dordrecht: Reidel.
Appiah, A.: 1985, Conditionals and Assertion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hajek, A.: 1989, 'Probabilities of Conditionals – Revisited', Journal of Philosophical Logic 18, 423–428.
Lewis, D.K.: 1976, 'Probabilities of Conditionals and Conditional Probability', Philosophical Review 85, 279–315.
McCall, S.: 1994, A Model of the Universe, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Morgan, C.G.: 1984, 'Weak, Conditional Comparative Probability as a Formal Semantic Theory', Zeitschr.f.math.Logik und Grundlagen d.Math. 30, 199–212.
Morgan, C.G. and Mares, E.D.: 1995, 'Conditionals, Probability, and Non-triviality', Journal of Philosophical Logic 24, 455–467.
Popper, K.: 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York, Basic Books.
Stalnaker, R.C.: 1970, 'Probabilities of Conditionals', Philosophy of Science 37, 68–80.
van Fraassen, B.C.: 1976, 'Probabilities of Conditionals', in W.L. Harper and C.A. Hooker (Eds.), Foundations of Probability Theory, Statistical Inference, and Statistical Theories of Science, vol. 1, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 261–300.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Morgan, C.G. Conditionals, Comparative Probability, and Triviality: The Conditional of Conditional Probability Cannot Be Represented in the Object Language. Topoi 18, 97–116 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006238120301
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006238120301