Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Synthese Library ((SYLI,volume 65))

  • 189 Accesses

Abstract

There are three fundamentally distinct ways of interpreting probability: personalistic, logical, and empirical. At least one of these conceptions of probability underlies any theory of statistical inference (or, to use Neyman’s phrase, ‘inductive behavior’). Each interpretation admits a variety of subinterpretations, but the three basic kinds of interpretation may be distinguished by the truth conditions associated with statements of probability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. John Venn, The Logic of Chance, London, 1866.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Richard von Mises, Wahrscheinlichkeit, Statistik, und Wahrheit, J. Springer, Berlin, 1928. Translated as Probability, Statistics, and Truth, 2nd revised English edition, prepared by Hilda Geiringer, London and New York, 1957.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. The concept of randomness in a collective has a long and interesting history discussed with clarity and precision by J. A. Coffa in his dissertation, Foundations of Inductive Explanation, University of Pittsburgh, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Among the distinguished contributors to this history are A. Wald, ‘Über die Wieder-spruchsfreiheit des Kollectivbegriffes’, Ergebnisse eines math. Kolloquiums, 1947, pp. 38–72;

    Google Scholar 

  5. A. Church, ‘The Concept of a Random Sequence’, Bull, of American Mathematical Society 46 (1940), 130–135;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. and C. P. Schnoor ‘A Unified Approach to the Definition of Random Sequence’, Mathematical Systems Theory 5 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  7. An important recent review article is Per Martin-Löf, ‘The Literature on von Mises’ Kollektives Revisited’, Theoria 35 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. Neyman, First Course in Probability and Statistics, New York, 1950; Lectures and Conferences on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Washington, D.C., 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  9. H. Cramér, Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Princeton, 1951. (First edition, Uppsala, 1945.)

    Google Scholar 

  10. K. R. Popper, ‘The Propensity Interpretation of Probability’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (1959, 1960), 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ian Hacking, The Logic of Statistical Inference, Cambridge, 1965. Hacking’s ‘chance’ corresponds roughly to Popper’s ‘propensity’.

    Google Scholar 

  12. For a recent work that makes much of the application of propensities to the single case, see D. H. Mellor, The Matter of Chance, Cambridge, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  13. To these references we should now add D. A. Gillies, An Objective Theory of Probability, Methuen, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  14. A general review of propensity theory is H. E. Kyburg, ‘Probabilities and Propensities’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  15. For the views of Neyman, von Mises, and Cramer, see the works cited. Hans Reichen-bach’s views may be found in Experience and Prediction, Chicago 1938 and The Theory of Probability, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1949. The latter appeared first in German in 1934. It should be observed that Reichenbach also employs a concept of weight, analogous to (empirical) probability, which is applicable to the single case. Wesley Salmon’s views are most completely expressed in The Foundations of Scientific Inference, Pittsburgh 1967. Propensity theorists are prone to talk of the probability of the ‘single case’, but this only amounts to predicating distributively of each member of the class what is — on the frequency view — true of the whole class collectively.

    Google Scholar 

  16. This is not true of the view of Mellor.

    Google Scholar 

  17. These integrals are defined formally in the appendix. In most instances they amount to the familiar Riemann integral of calculus.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1974 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kyburg, H.E. (1974). The Probability Framework. In: The Logical Foundations of Statistical Inference. Synthese Library, vol 65. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2175-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2175-3_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-277-0430-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-010-2175-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics