Abstract
AbstractAccording to an infinite frequency principle, it is rational, under certain conditions, to set your credence in an outcome to the limiting frequency of that outcome if the experiment were repeated indefinitely. I argue that most infinite frequency principles are undesirable in at least one of the following ways: (1) accepting the principle would lead you to accept bets with sure losses, (2) the principle gives no guidance in the case of deterministic experiments like coin tosses and (3) the principle relies on a metaphysical property, ‘chanciness’, whose necessary and sufficient conditions are unknown. I show that a frequency principle that is based on the principal principle suffers from problems related to the definition of ‘chance’ or ‘chanciness’, which could lead to all three of the above problems. I introduce a version of the infinite frequency principle that does not rely on a notion of chance or chanciness and does not suffer from any of these problems.
Funder
h2020 european research council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference40 articles.
1. Ackermans, L.B. (forthcoming). Deterministic propensities. In Probability, causation and inequality of opportunity. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam. (PhD thesis)
2. Albert, M. (2005). Should Bayesians bet where frequentists fear to tread? Philosophy of Science, 72(4), 584–593. https://doi.org/10.1086/505185
3. Berkovitz, J. (2015). The propensity interpretation of probability: A re-evaluation. Erkenntnis, 80(3), 629–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9716-8
4. Carnap, R. (1962). Logical foundations of probability (2nd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.
5. Church, A. (1940). On the concept of a random sequence. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 46(2), 130–135.