Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Hacking's frequentist constraint holds that probability s... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The likelihood ratio of naked statistical evidence in cases such as Prisoner and Gatecrasher is strictly speaking unknown, not determinately one or greater than one.

    Hacking's frequentist constraint holds that probability statements require a well-defined reference class, and naked statistics like '60% of prisoners escaped' underdetermine the reference class.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Probability statements require a domain to be meaningful; '60% of X' differs fundamentally from '60% of Y' even with identical numbers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bare statistics invite hidden equivocation: listeners may interpret 'prisoners escaped' as meaning different reference classes (yearly, by facility, by security level).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Scientific practice confirms this: experimental probability claims specify populations, methods, and conditions to ensure reproducibility and proper interpretation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Most everyday probability discourse works fine without explicit reference classes; context and practical purposes often make the intended class clear enough.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hacking conflates semantic indeterminacy with logical invalidity; vague reference classes don't make statistics meaningless, just less precise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The constraint proves too much: natural language always involves implicit background assumptions, yet we don't treat all such statements as probability-ineligible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Key Terms

    Frequentist constraint(the main concept in the statement)
    A rule stating that when you make a probability claim (like '60% chance'), you need to be clear about *which group* you're talking about—otherwise the number doesn't really mean anything.
    Hacking, Ian(the philosopher whose argument is being discussed)
    A contemporary philosopher who studies how science and language shape our understanding of the world, particularly interested in how classifying people can actually change their behavior.
    Reference class(Boorse's biostatistical theory)
    A biologically relevant subgroup of a species used to specify the population mean against which individual functional efficiency is measured, accounting for the fact that not all members of a species share the same design in every respect
    Underdetermine(in epistemology (theory of knowledge))
    When something doesn't give you enough information to figure out the complete answer—it leaves multiple possibilities still open.
    naked statistics(Legal epistemology; used to distinguish bare probabilistic inference from evidence particularized to the case at hand.)
    Statistical evidence consisting solely of base-rate or population-level probabilities, without any individuating evidence connecting a specific defendant to a specific event.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Bare statistics invite hidden equivocation: listeners may interpret 'prisoners e...Hacking conflates semantic indeterminacy with logical invalidity; vague referenc...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    Most everyday probability discourse works fine without explicit reference classe...
    Probability statements require a domain to be meaningful; '60% of X' differs fun...
    +3 moreShow less
    Scientific practice confirms this: experimental probability claims specify popul...The constraint proves too much: natural language always involves implicit backgr...The likelihood ratio of naked statistical evidence in cases such as Prisoner and...