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
In the first place, it serves very pointedly to remind us of
the distinction between a series of events (in this case the
tosses of the penny) which really are subjects of chance, and
our conduct founded upon these events, which may or may
not be so subject.[4] It is quite possible that this latter may
be so contrived as to be in many respects a matter of absolute
certainty,--a consideration, I presume, familiar enough
to professional betting men. Why is the ordinary way of
betting on the throws of a penny fair to both parties? Because
a 'fair' series is 'fairly' treated. The heads and tails
occur at random, but on an average equally often, and the
stakes are either fixed or also arranged at random. If a man
backs heads every time for the same amount, he will of
course in the long run neither win nor lose. Neither will he
if he varies the stake every time, provided he does not vary
it in such a way as to make its amount dependent on the
fact of his having won or lost the time before. But he
may, if he pleases, and the other party consents, so arrange
his stakes (as in the case in question) that Chance, if one
might so express it, does not get a fair chance. Here the
human elements of choice and design have been so brought
to bear upon a series of events which, regarded by themselves,
exhibit nothing but the physical characteristics of
chance, that the latter elements disappear, and we get a
result which is arithmetically certain. Other analogous
instances might be suggested, but the one before us has the
merit of most ingeniously disguising the actual process.
17. The meaning of the remark just made will be
better seen by a comparison with the following case. It has
been attempted[5] to explain the preponderance of male births
over female by assuming that the chances of the two are
equal, but that the general desire to have a male heir tends
to induce many unions to persist until the occurrence of this
event, and no longer. It is supposed that in this way there
would be a slight preponderance of families which consisted
of one son only, or of two sons and one daughter, and so forth.
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