Personalistic Bayesianism

  • Colin Howson
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 56)


The mathematical theory of probability had its origin, in S. D. Poisson’s words, “in a problem about a game of chance proposed to an austere Jansenist by a man of the world.” The austere Jansenist was, of course, Pascal, and the man of the world the Chevalier de Méré. The simple rules of the probability calculus rapidly acquired a greater significance, and by the end of the seventeenth century James Bernoulli announced, in his Ars Conjectandi, that probability was to be understood as measuring degrees of certainty, and as such constituted the foundation of a new species of logic, the logic of uncertain, or, in modern terminology, of ampliative or inductive inference. Its principal application was to be in effect decision theory, to assist in determining prudent courses of action. Carnap was to say much the same thing two and a half centuries later (in Carnap and Jeffrey [1971] p. 7, for example).


Prior Distribution Subjective Probability Inductive Inference Dutch Book Subjective Distribution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bayes, T. [1763]: ‘An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 53.Google Scholar
  2. Carnap, R. [1950]: Logical Foundations of Probability, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Carnap, R. and Jeffrey, R.C. [1971]: Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, vol. 1, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dubois, D. and Prade, H. [1988]: ‘Modelling Uncertainty and Inductive Inference: A Survey of Recent Non-additive Systems’, Acta Psychologica, 68, 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ellsberg, D. [1961]: ‘Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Earman, J. [1992]: Back to Bayesics, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fisher, R.A. [1926]: The Design of Experiments, Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
  8. Garber, D. [1983]: ‘Old Evidence and Logical Omniscience in Bayesian Confirmation Theory’, in Testing Scientific Theories, ed. Earman, J., Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gärdenfors, P. and Sahlin, N-E [1982]: ‘Unreliable Probabilities, Risk Taking, and Decision Making’, Synthese, 53, 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Howson, C. and Urbach, P.M. [1989]: Scientific Reasoning; the Bayesian Approach, La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  11. Popper, K.R. [1959]: The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  12. Raiffa, H. [1961]: ‘Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms: Comment’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 690–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smith, C.A.B. [1961]: ‘Consistency in Statistical Inference and Decision’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 23, 1–25.Google Scholar
  14. Wason, P.C. [1966]: ‘Reasoning’, in New Horizons in Psychology, ed. Foss, B.M., Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin Howson
    • 1
  1. 1.London School of Economics and Political ScienceUK

Personalised recommendations