Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T20:22:29.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Discussion: On Falling Short of Strict Coherence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Ian Hacking*
Affiliation:
Makerere University College

Extract

Abner Shimony called it coherence; John Kemeny called it strict fairness; today many people speak of strict coherence. According to Shimony's definition, a set of betting rates on a series of propositions hi and ei is strictly incoherent, when “there exists a choice of stakes Si such that, if X accepts the series of bets at these stakes, then no matter what the actual truth values of hi, and ei may be, X can at best lose nothing, and in at least one possible eventuality he will suffer a positive loss” ([3], p. 9).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1968

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.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Hacking, I., “Slightly More Realistic Personal Probability,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 37, 1967, pp. 311325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Kripke, S., “Semantical Analysis of Intuitionistic Logic I,” Formal Systems and Recursive Functions (ed J. N. Crossley and M. A. E. Dummett), Amsterdam, 1965.Google Scholar
[3] Shimony, A., “Coherence and the Axioms of Confirmation,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. XX, 1955, pp. 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar