The Logic of Chance, 3rd edition: An Essay on the Foundations and Province of the Theory of Probability, With Especial Reference to Its Logical Bearings and Its Application to Moral and Social Science and to StatisticsVenn, John
Philosophy
The Logic of Chance, 3rd edition: An Essay on the Foundations and Province of the Theory of Probability, With Especial Reference to Its Logical Bearings and Its Application to Moral and Social Science and to Statistics
Venn, John
Chance; Logic, Symbolic and mathematical; Probabilities; Science -- Methodology
17. The conception then of the science of Probability
as a science of the laws of belief seems to break down at
every point. We must not however rest content with such
merely negative criticism. The degree of belief we entertain
of a proposition may be hard to get at accurately, and
when obtained may be often wrong, and may need therefore
to be checked by an appeal to the objects of belief. Still in
popular estimation we do seem to be able with more or less
accuracy to form a graduated scale of intensity of belief.
What we have to examine now is whether this be possible,
and, if so, what is the explanation of the fact?
That it is generally believed that we can form such a
scale scarcely admits of doubt. There is a whole vocabulary
of common expressions such as, 'I feel almost sure,' 'I do not
feel quite certain,' 'I am less confident of this than of that,'
and so on. When we make use of any one of these phrases
we seldom doubt that we have a distinct meaning to convey
by means of it. Nor do we feel much at a loss, under any
given circumstances, as to which of these expressions we
should employ in preference to the others. If we were asked
to arrange in order, according to the intensity of the belief
with which we respectively hold them, things broadly marked
off from one another, we could do it from our consciousness
of belief alone, without a fresh appeal to the evidence upon
which the belief depended. Passing over the looser propositions
which are used in common conversation, let us take but
one simple example from amongst those which furnish numerical
data. Do I not feel more certain that some one will die
this week in the whole town, than in the particular street in
which I live? and if the town is known to contain a population
one hundred times greater than that in the street, would
not almost any one be prepared to assert on reflection that
he felt a hundred times more sure of the first proposition
than of the second? Or to take a non-numerical example, are
we not often able to say unhesitatingly which of two propositions
we believe the most, and to some rough degree how
much more we believe one than the other, at a time when all
the evidence upon which each rests has faded from the
mind, so that each has to be judged, as we may say, solely on
its own merits?
Here then a problem proposes itself. If popular opinion,
as illustrated in common language, be correct,--and very
considerable weight must of course be attributed to it,--there
does exist something which we call partial belief in reference
to any proposition of the numerical kind described
above. Now what we want to do is to find some test or
justification of this belief, to obtain in fact some intelligible
answer to the question, Is it correct? We shall find incidentally
that the answer to this question will throw a good deal
of light upon another question nearly as important and far
more intricate, viz. What is the meaning of this partial belief?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account