Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T12:48:51.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamic Coherence and Probability Kinematics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Brian Skyrms
Brian Skyrms*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of California at Irvine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The question of coherence of rules for changing degrees of belief in the light of new evidence is studied, with special attention being given to cases in which evidence is uncertain. Belief change by the rule of conditionalization on an appropriate proposition and belief change by “probability kinematics“ on an appropriate partition are shown to have like status.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

Research partially supported by National Science Foundation Grant SES-84-09898. Some of these results were presented at the Stanford University Statistics Colloquium in January, 1985, and to the Ohio State University Conference on Decision Theory in March, 1985. I would like to thank Ernest Adams, Brad Armendt, Nancy Cartwright, Persi Diaconis, Richard Jeffrey, Paul Teller, and Bas van Fraassen for comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

REFERENCES

Adams, E. (1962), “On Rational Betting Systems”, Archive für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforshung 6: 7–29, 112–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armendt, B. (1980), “Is There a Dutch Book Argument for Probability Kinematics?” Philosophy of Science 47: 583–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaconis, P., and Zabell, S. (1982), “Updating Subjective Probability”, Journal of the American Statistical Association 77: 822–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Finetti, B. (1937), “La Prévision: ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives”, Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincaré 7: 1–68. (Translation published as “Foresight: its logical laws, its subjective sources”, in Studies in Subjective Probability, Henry E. Kyburg, Jr. and H. Smokier (eds.). Huntington NY: Krieger, 1980.)Google Scholar
Freedman, D. A., and Purves, R. A. (1969), “Bayes Method for Bookies”, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 40: 1177–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, M. (1983), “The Prevision of a Prevision”, Journal of the American Statistical Association 78: 817–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, I. J. (1981), “The Weight of Evidence Provided by Uncertain Testimony or from an Uncertain Event”, Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 13: 56–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1967), “Slightly More Realistic Personal Probability,” Philosophy of Science 34: 311–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, R. (1965), The Logic of Decision. New York: McGraw-Hill. Second edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. (1931), “Truth and Probability”, in The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Essays, Braithwaite, R. B. (ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace. (Reprinted in Studies in Subjective Probability, Henry E. Kyburg, Jr. and H. Smokier (eds.), Huntington NY: Krieger, 1980.)Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1980a), Causal Necessity. New Haven: Yale University Press, Appendix 2.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1980b), “Higher-Order Degrees of Belief”, in Prospects for Pragmatism, Mellor, D. H. (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Teller, P. (1973), “Conditionalization and Observation”, Synthese 26: 218–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. (1976), “Conditionalization, Observation, and Change of Preference”, in Foundations of Probability Theory, Statistical Inference, and Statistical Theories of Science, Harper, W. and Hooker, C. (eds.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 205–53.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1984), “Belief and the Will”, Journal of Philosophy 81: 235–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar