# Subjective Probability

**DOI:**https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_1625

## Abstract

The usual meaning of ‘probable’ in ordinary conversation is closely related to its derivation from a Latin word meaning provable or capable of being made convincing. The concept is even clearer in the derivation of the German word *Wahrscheinlichkeit*, ‘having the appearance of truth’. In fact, when we say an event is probable we usually mean that we would not be surprised (or we ought not to be) if it occurred, or that we *would* be somewhat surprised (or ought to be) if did not occur. Since ‘surprise’ refers to a personal or subjective experience it seems clear that the ordinary concept of probability is subjectivistic (or else in some sense logical). Also a probability, in this subjective or logical sense, can be more or less large so it can be interpreted as a degree of belief or a rational degree of belief or intensity of conviction. A subjective probability is usually regarded as somewhat more than just a degree of belief – it is a degree of belief that belongs to a body of beliefs from which the worst inconsistencies have been removed by means of detached judgements. In short, the degree of belief should be more or less rational.

### Bibliography

- For an article covering somewhat similar ground to the present one see Good (1982a). On some points it says more and on some less.Google Scholar
- For books giving applications of subjective or logical probability in statistics see, for example, Jeffreys (1939–1961), Lindley (1965), Zellner (1971, 1980), De Groot (1970), Box and Tiao (1973), Rosenkratz (1977), Good (1965, 1983a), and Berger (1985).Google Scholar
- Bayes, T. 1763. An essay toward solving a problem in the doctrine of chances (with discussion and a foreword by Richard Price).
*Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society*53: 370–418; 54: 295–325. Reprinted by the Graduate School, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC (1940); and in*Biometrika*45 (1958), 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Berger, J.O. 1984. The robust Bayesian viewpoint. In
*Robustness of Bayesian analysis*, ed. J.B. Kadane, 64–144. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar - Berger, J.O. 1985.
*Statistical decision theory and Bayesian analysis*, 2nd ed. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bernardo, J.M., M.H. De Groot, D.V. Lindley, and A.F.M. Smith (eds.). 1983–1985.
*Bayesian Statistics 2: Proceedings of the second Valencia international meeting.*September 6–10, 1983. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar - Box, G.E.P., and G.C. Tiao. 1973.
*Bayesian inference in statistical analysis*. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar - Carnap, R. 1952.
*The continuum of inductive methods*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar - Cox, R.T. 1946. Probability, frequency and reasonable expectation.
*American Journal of Physics*14: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cox, R.T. 1961.
*The algebra of probable inference*. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar - de Finetti, B. 1937. La prévision: ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives.
*Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré*7: 1–68. Translated in Kyburg and Smokler (1980).Google Scholar - de Finetti, B. 1968–1970. Initial probabilities: A prerequisite for any valid induction.
*Synthese*20, 1969, 2–24 (with discussion). In*Induction, physics and ethics: Proceedings and discussions of the 1968 Salzburg Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science*, ed. P. Weingartner and G. Zechs. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1970.Google Scholar - De Groot, M.H. 1970.
*Optimal statistical decisions*. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar - Geisser, S. 1983–1985. On the prediction of observables: A selective update, in Bernardo et al. (1983–1985), 203–229 (with discussion).Google Scholar
- Good, I.J. 1950.
*Probability and the weighing of evidence*. London/New York: Charles Griffin/Hafners.Google Scholar - Good, I.J. 1952. Rational decisions.
*Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B*14: 107–114. Reprinted in Good (1983a).Google Scholar - Good, I.J. 1953–1957. The appropriate mathematical tools for describing and measuring uncertainty. In
*Uncertainty and business decisions*, ed. C.F. Carter, G.P. Meredith, and G.L.S. Shackle, 20–36. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Partly reprinted in Good (1983a).Google Scholar - Good, I.J. 1960–1962. Subjective probability as the measure of a non-measurable set. In
*Logic, methodology, and philosophy of science*, ed. E. Nagel, P. Suppes, and A. Tarski, 319–329. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Reprinted in Kyburg and Smokler (1980) and in Good (1983a).Google Scholar - Good, I.J. 1965.
*The estimation of probabilities: An essay on modern Bayesian methods*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar - Good, I.J. 1966. How to estimate probabilities.
*Journal of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications*2: 364–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Good, I.J. 1968. Corroboration, explanation, evolving probability, simplicity, and a sharpened razor.
*British Journal for the Philosophy of Science*19: 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Good, I.J. 1977. Dynamic probability, computer chess, and the measurement of knowledge. In
*Machine intelligence*, vol. 8, ed. E.W. Elcock and D. Michie, 139–150. Chichester: Ellis Horwood. Reprinted in Good (1983a).Google Scholar - Good, I.J. 1979–1981. Some history of the hierarchical Bayesian methodology. In
*Bayesian Statistics: Proceedings of the First International Meeting held in Valencia (Spain)*, May 28–June 2, 1979, ed. J.M. Bernardo, M.H. De Groot, D.V. Lindley, and A.F.M. Smith, University of Valencia, 1981, 489–510 and 512–519 (with discussion).Google Scholar - Good, I.J. 1981–1983. The robustness of a hierarchical model for multinomials and contingency tables. In
*Scientific inference, data analysis, and robustness*, ed. G.E.P. Box, Tom Leonard, and Chien-Fu Wu, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar - Good, I.J. 1982a. Degrees of belief. In
*Encyclopedia of statistical sciences*, vol. 2, ed. S. Kotz and N.L. Johnson, 287–293. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar - Good, I.J. 1982b. Standardized tail-area probabilities.
*Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation*16: 65–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Good, I.J. 1983a.
*Good thinking: The foundations of probability and its applications*. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar - Good, I.J. 1983b. The philosophy of exploratory data analysis.
*Philosophy of Science*50: 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Good, I.J. 1983c. A correction concerning my interpretation of Peirce, and the Bayesian interpretation of Neyman–Pearson ‘hypothesis determination.
*Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation*18: 71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Good, I.J. 1983d. The diminishing significance of a fixed P-value as the sample size increases: A discrete model.
*Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation*16: 312–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Good, I.J. 1984. The best explicatum for weight of evidence.
*Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation*19: 294–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Good, I.J. 1985a. Weight of evidence: A brief survey. In Bernardo et al. 1983–85, 249–269 (with discussion).Google Scholar
- Good, I.J. 1985b. A historical comment concerning novel confirmation.
*British Journal for the Philosophy of Science*36: 184–185.Google Scholar - Good, I.J. 1986a. Statistical evidence. In
*Encyclopedia of statistical sciences*, vol. 8, ed. S. Kotz, N.L. Johnson, and C. Read. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar - Good, I.J. 1986b. Surprise index. In
*Encyclopedia of statistical sciences*, vol. 9, ed. S. Kotz, N.L. Johnson, and C. Read. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar - Haldane, J.B.S. 1931. A note on inverse probability.
*Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society*28: 55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hardy, G.F. 1889. In correspondence in
*Insurance Record*, reprinted in*Transactions of the Faculty of Actuaries*8, (1920), 174–182, esp. 181.Google Scholar - Hogarth, R.M. 1975. Cognitive processes and the assessment of subjective probability distributions.
*Journal of the American Statistical Association*70: 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Jeffreys, H. 1926. Further significance tests.
*Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society*32: 416–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Jeffreys, H. 1957.
*Scientific inference*, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Jeffreys, H. 1961.
*Theory of probability*. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar - Johnson, W.E. 1932. Appendix (ed. R.B. Braithwaite) to ‘Probability: Deductive and inductive problems’.
*Mind*41: 421–423.Google Scholar - Keynes, J.M. 1921.
*A treatise on probability*. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar - Koopman, B.O. 1940a. The basis of probability.
*Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society*46: 763–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Koopman, B.O. 1940b. The axioms and algebra of intuitive probability.
*Annals of Mathematics*41: 269–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kyburg, H.E., and H.E. Smokler (eds.). 1980.
*Studies in subjective probability*, 2nd ed. Huntington/New York: Robert E. Krieger (1st ed, New York: Wiley, 1964).Google Scholar - Lindley, D.V. 1965.
*Introduction to probability and statistics*, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Novick, M.R., and P.H. Jackson. 1974.
*Statistical methods for educational and psychological research*. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar - Pearson, K. 1892.
*The grammar of science*. Reprinted, London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1937.Google Scholar - Pearson, K. 1899. Theory of genetic (reproductive) selection.
*Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (A)*192: 260–278, esp. 277–278, ‘On the spurious correlation produced by forming a mixture of heterogeneous but uncorrelated materials’.Google Scholar - Peirce, C.S. 1878. The probability of induction.
*Popular Science Monthly*. Reprinted in*The world of mathematics*, vol. 2, ed. James R. Newman. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1956, 1341–1354.Google Scholar - Poisson, S.-D. 1837.
*Recherches sur la probabilité des jugements en matière criminelle et en matière civile*. Paris: Bachelier.Google Scholar - Ramsey, F.P. 1926. Truth and probability. In
*The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays*. London/New York: Kegan Paul/Harcourt, Brace & Co. Reprinted in Kyburg and Smokler (1980).Google Scholar - Rosenkrantz, R.D. 1977.
*Inference, method and decision*. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Savage, L.J. 1954.
*The foundations of statistics*. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar - Schroedinger, E. 1947. The foundation of probability.
*Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy*51A: 51–66 and 141–146.Google Scholar - Shackle, G.L.S. 1949.
*Expectation in economics*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Smith, C.A.B.. 1961. Consistency in statistical inference and decision.
*Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B*23: 1–37 (with discussion).Google Scholar - Weaver, W. 1948. Probability, rarity, interest and surprise.
*Scientific Monthly*67: 390–392.Google Scholar - Yule, G.U. 1903. Notes on the theory of association of attributes in statistics.
*Biometrika*2: 121–134. Reprinted in*Statistical papers of George Udny Yule*, ed. A. Stuart and M.G. Kendall. London: Griffin, 1971, 71–84.Google Scholar - Zellner, A. 1971.
*An introduction to Bayesian inference in econometrics*. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar - Zellner, A. (ed.). 1980.
*Bayesian analysis in econometrics and statistics: Essays in honor of Harold Jeffreys*. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar