display all the ideas for this combination of texts
3 ideas
7447 | Probability was fully explained between 1654 and 1812 [Hacking] |
Full Idea: There is hardly any history of probability to record before Pascal (1654), and the whole subject is very well understood after Laplace (1812). | |
From: Ian Hacking (The Emergence of Probability [1975], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: An interesting little pointer on the question of whether the human race is close to exhausting all the available intellectual problems. What then? |
7448 | Probability is statistical (behaviour of chance devices) or epistemological (belief based on evidence) [Hacking] |
Full Idea: Probability has two aspects: the degree of belief warranted by evidence, and the tendency displayed by some chance device to produce stable relative frequencies. These are the epistemological and statistical aspects of the subject. | |
From: Ian Hacking (The Emergence of Probability [1975], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: The most basic distinction in the subject. Later (p.124) he suggests that the statistical form (known as 'aleatory' probability) is de re, and the other is de dicto. |
7449 | Epistemological probability based either on logical implications or coherent judgments [Hacking] |
Full Idea: Epistemological probability is torn between Keynes etc saying it depends on the strength of logical implication, and Ramsey etc saying it is personal judgement which is subject to strong rules of internal coherence. | |
From: Ian Hacking (The Emergence of Probability [1975], Ch.2) | |
A reaction: See Idea 7449 for epistemological probability. My immediate intuition is that the Ramsey approach sounds much more plausible. In real life there are too many fine-grained particulars involved for straight implication to settle a probability. |