Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:44:59.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Probabilities as Truth-Value Estimates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Hugues Leblanc*
Affiliation:
Bryn Mawr College

Abstract

The author recently claimed that Pr(P, Q), where Pr is a probability function and P and Q are two sentences of a formalized language L, qualifies as an estimate—made in the light of Q—of the truth-value of P in L. To substantiate his claim, the author establishes here that the two strategies lying at the opposite extremes of the spectrum of truth-value estimating strategies meet the first five of the six requirements (R1-R6) currently placed upon probability functions and fail to meet the sixth one. He concludes from those two results that the value for P and Q of any function satisfying R1-R5 must rate “minimally satisfactory” and the value for P and Q of any function satisfying R1-R6 must rate “satisfactory” as an estimate—made in the light of Q—of the truth-value of P in L.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1961

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

1 I made the claim in three recent papers of mine, “On chances and estimated chances of being true,” Revue Philosophique de Louvain, vol. 57 (1959), pp. 225-239, “On a Recent Allotment of Probabilities to Open and Closed Sentences,” Notre-Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. I (1960), pp. 171-175, and “A New Interpretation of c(h, e),” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. XXI (1961), pp. 373-376.

2 R1-R6 are an adaptation of G. H. von Wright's requirements for probability functions in The Logical Problem of Induction, New York (1957), pp. 92-93. For further details on the matter, see the author's “On Logically False Evidence Statements,” The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 22 (1957), pp. 345-349.