Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T16:49:45.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Axiomatic Theory of Inductive Inference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Luciano Pomatto  and
Alvaro Sandroni
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article develops an axiomatic theory of induction that speaks to the recent debate on Bayesian orgulity. It shows the exact principles associated with the belief that data can corroborate universal laws. We identify two types of disbelief about induction: skepticism that the existence of universal laws of nature can be determined empirically, and skepticism that the true law of nature, if it exists, can be successfully identified. We formalize and characterize these two dispositions toward induction by introducing novel axioms for subjective probabilities. We also relate these dispositions to the (controversial) axiom of σ-additivity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 85 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 293 - 315
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.)

Footnotes

†.

We are grateful to Nabil Al-Najjar, Frederick Eberhardt, and Alvaro Riascos. All remaining errors are our own.

References

Acemoglu, D., Cherzonukov, V., and Yildiz, M.. 2016. “Fragility of Asymptotic Agreement under Bayesian Learning.” Theoretical Economics 11:187–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Najjar, N., Pomatto, L., and Sandroni, A.. 2014. “Claim Validation.” American Economic Review 104 (11): 3725–36..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belot, G. 2013. “Bayesian Orgulity.” Philosophy of Science 80 (4): 483–503..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belot, G. 2017. “Objectivity and Bias.” Mind 126 (503): 655–95..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, D., and Dubins, L.. 1962. “Merging of Opinions with Increasing Information.” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 33 (3): 882–86..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broad, C. D. 1918. “On the Relation between Induction and Probability.” Pt. 1. Mind 27 (4): 389–404..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Finetti, B. 1969. “Initial Probabilities: A Prerequisite for Any Valid Induction.” Synthese 20 (1): 2–16..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Finetti, B. 1970. Theory of Probability. Vol. 2. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
de Finetti, B. 1972. Probability, Induction, and Statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Doob, J. L. 1949. “Application of the Theory of Martingales.” In Le calcul des probabilites et ses applications, 23–27. Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, F. Y. 1922. “The Philosophy of Chance.” Mind 31 (123): 257–83..Google Scholar
Elga, A. 2016. “Bayesian Humility.” Philosophy of Science 83 (3): 305–23..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilboa, I., and Samuelson, L.. 2012. “Subjectivity in Inductive Inference.” Theoretical Economics 7 (2): 183–215..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. 1955. Fact, Fiction and Forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Huttegger, S. 2015. “Bayesian Convergence to the Truth and the Metaphysics of Possible Worlds.” Philosophy of Science 82 (4): 587–601..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juhl, C., and Kelly, K. T.. 1994. “Reliability, Convergence, and Additivity.” In PSA 1994: Proceedings of the 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 181–89. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Kelly, K. T. 1996. Logic of Reliable Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, E., and Smorodinsky, R.. 1996. “Merging and Learning.” Statistics, Probability and Game Theory 30:147–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lévy, P. 1937. Theorie de l’Addition des Variables Aléatoires. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.Google Scholar
Łoś, J., and Marczewski, E.. 1949. “Extensions of Measures.” Fundamenta Mathematicae 1 (36): 267–76..Google Scholar
Pomatto, L., Al-Najjar, N., and Sandroni, A.. 2014. “Merging and Testing Opinions.” Annals of Statistics 42 (3): 1003–28..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, K. P. S., and Rao, M.. 1983. Theory of Charges. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1912. The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shiryaev, A. N. 1996. Probability. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalker, D. F. 1994. Grue! The New Riddle of Induction. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Weatherson, B. 2015. “For Bayesians, Rational Modesty Requires Imprecision.” Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy 2 (20).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrinch, D., and Jeffreys, H.. 1919. “On Some Aspects of the Theory of Probability.” Philosophical Magazine 38 (228): 715–31..Google Scholar
Zabell, S. L. 2011. “Carnap and the Logic of Inductive Inference.” In Handbook of the History of Logic, ed. Gabbay, Dov M., Woods, John, and Kanamori, Akihiro, 265–309. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar