Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T16:24:21.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Justification of Induction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

R. D. Rosenkrantz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We show there is only one consistent way to update a probability assignment, that given by Bayes's rule. The price of inconsistent updating is a loss of efficiency. The implications of this for the problem of induction are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 59 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 527 - 539
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 by 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

†

An earlier version of this paper was read at a Symposium on Probabilistic Epistemology (with Brian Skyrms and Richard Jeffrey) at the Pacific Meetings of the A. P. A. (March 1989).

‡

Send reprint requests to the author, 11 H Woodhaven, White River Jct., VT 05001, USA.

References

Adams, E. and Rosenkrantz, R. D. (1980), “Applying the Jeffrey Decision Model to Rational Betting and Information Acquisition”, Theory and Decision 12: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breiman, L.; Friedman, J. H.; Olshen, R. A.; and Stone, C. J. (1984), Classification and Regression Trees. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Brown, P. M. (1976), “Discussion: Conditionalization and Expected Utility”, Philosophy of Science 43: 415–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1945), “On Inductive Logic”, Philosophy of Science 12: 72–97.10.1086/286851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, R. T. (1946), “Probability, Frequency and Reasonable Expectation”, American Journal of Physics 14: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalkey, N. (1988), “A Logic of Information Systems”, in G. J. Erickson and C. R. Smith (eds.), Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods in Science and Engineering, vol. 1. Dordrecht; Kluwer, pp. 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1985), “Philosophy of Science Naturalized”, Philosophy of Science 52: 331–356.10.1086/289255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1988), Understanding Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Good, I. J. (1967), “On the Principle of Total Evidence”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 17: 319–321.10.1093/bjps/17.4.319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, P. (1989), “Discussion: The Total Evidence Theorem for Probability Kinematics”, Philosophy of Science 56: 317–324.10.1086/289490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenkrantz, R. D. (1981), Foundations and Applications of Inductive Probability. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. and Weaver, W. (1949), The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Shuford, A. A. and Massengill, E. H. (1966), “Admissible Probability Measurement Procedures”, Psychometrika 31 (2): 125–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skyrms, B. (1991), “The Value of Knowledge”, in C. W. Savage (ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 14, Scientific Theories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 245–266.Google Scholar