Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:59:10.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bayesian Humility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Adam Elga
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Say that an agent is epistemically humble if she is less than fully confident that her opinions will converge to the truth, given appropriate evidence. Is such humility rationally permissible? According to Gordon Belot’s orgulity argument: the answer is yes, but long-run convergence-to-the-truth theorems force Bayesians to answer no. That argument has no force against Bayesians who reject countable additivity as a requirement of rationality. Such Bayesians are free to count even extreme humility as rationally permissible. Furthermore, dropping countable additivity does not render Bayesianism more vulnerable to the charge that it is excessively subjective.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 83 , Issue 3 , July 2016 , pp. 305 - 323
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

†

For helpful comments and discussion, thanks to Andrew Bacon, Gordon Belot, Cian Dorr, Kenny Easwaran, Kevin Kelly, Bas van Fraassen, Jim Hawthorne, Teddy Seidenfeld, Brian Weatherson, Jonathan Wright, and anonymous reviewers. I thank John Burgess for introducing me to the dualities between measure and category when he was my junior paper advisor in spring 1995. For financial support I am grateful to the David A. Gardner ’69 Magic project (through Princeton University’s Humanities council), the PIIRs Research Community on Systemic Risk, and a 2014–15 Deutshe Bank Membership at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. For an extremely congenial work environment in July 2014, thanks to Mindy and Gene Stein.

References

Bartha, P. 2004. “Countable Additivity and the de Finetti Lottery.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2): 301–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belot, G. 2013. “Bayesian Orgulity.” Philosophy of Science 80 (4): 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, D., and Dubins, L.. 1962. “Merging of Opinions with Increasing Information.” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 33 (3): 882–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, A. F. 1999. What Is This Thing Called Science? 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Chen, R. 1977. “On Almost Sure Convergence in a Finitely Additive Setting.” Zeitschrift fr Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete 37 (4): 341–56.Google Scholar
de Finetti, B. 1970. Theory of Probability: A Critical Introductory Treatment. Trans. Machi, A. and Smith, A.. Vol. 1. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dubins, L. 1975. “Finitely Additive Conditional Probabilities, Conglomerability and Disintegrations.” Annals of Probability 3 (1): 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubins, L., and Savage, L.. 1965. How to Gamble If You Must: Inequalities for Stochastic Processes. McGraw-Hill Series in Probability and Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Earman, J. 1992. Bayes or Bust? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Easwaran, K. 2011. “Bayesianism II: Applications and Criticisms.” Philosophy Compass 6 (5): 321–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easwaran, K. 2013. “Why Countable Additivity?” Thought 2:53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, W., Lindman, H., and Savage, L. J.. 1963. “Bayesian Statistical Inference for Psychological Research.” Psychological Review 70 (3): 193–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halmos, P. 1974. Measure Theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics 9. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. 1993. “Bayesian Induction Is Eliminative Induction.” Philosophical Topics 21 (1): 99–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, J. 2014. “Inductive Logic.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, E. N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Howson, C., and Urbach, P.. 2006. Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. 3rd ed. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Juhl, C., and Kelly, K. T.. 1994. “Realism, Convergence, and Additivity.” In PSA 1994: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 181–89. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Kadane, J. B., Schervish, M. J., and Seidenfeld, T.. 1986. “Statistical Implications of Finitely Additive Probability.” In Bayesian Inference and Decision Techniques, ed. de Finetti, Bruno, Goel, Prem K., and Zellner, Arnold, chap. 5. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kelly, K. T. 1996. The Logic of Reliable Inquiry. Logic and Computation in Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lane, D. A., and Sudderth, W. D.. 1985. “Coherent Predictions Are Strategic.” Annals of Statistics 13 (3): 1244–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I. 1980. The Enterprise of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lévy, P. 1937. Théorie de l’Addition des Variables Aléotoires. Paris: Gauthiers-Villars.Google Scholar
Oxtoby, J. 1980. Measure and Category: A Survey of the Analogies between Topological and Measure Spaces. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purves, R. A., and Sudderth, W. D.. 1976. “Some Finitely Additive Probability.” Annals of Probability 4 (2): 259–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purves, R. A., and Sudderth, W. D. 1983. “Finitely Additive Zero-One Laws.” Sankhya: Indian Journal of Statistics A 45 (1): 32–37.Google Scholar
Rao, K., and Rao, B.. 1983. Theory of Charges: A Study of Finitely Additive Measures. Pure and Applied Mathematics. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Savage, L. 1954. The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schervish, M., and Seidenfeld, T.. 1990. “An Approach to Consensus and Certainty with Increasing Evidence.” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 25 (3): 401–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schervish, M., Seidenfeld, T., and Kadane, J.. 1984. “The Extent of Non-conglomerability of Finitely Additive Probabilities.” Zeitschrift fr Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie 66:205–26.Google Scholar
Seidenfeld, T. 1985. “Calibration, Coherence, and Scoring Rules.” Philosophy of Science 52 (2): 274–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenfeld, T., and Schervish, M. J.. 1983. “A Conflict between Finite Additivity and Avoiding Dutch Book.” Philosophy of Science 50:398–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallinder, A. 2012. “Solomonoff Induction: A Solution to the Problem of the Priors?” Master’s thesis, Lund University.Google Scholar
Weatherson, B. 2014. “Belot on Bayesian Orgulity.” Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Zabell, S. L. 2002. “It All Adds Up: The Dynamic Coherence of Radical Probabilism.” Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 69 (3): S98–S103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar