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
    Understanding probability in terms of frequency makes it ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Understanding probability in terms of frequency makes it impossible to have direct acquaintance with probabilistic connections between propositions.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On frequentist accounts (von Mises, Reichenbach), probability is defined as the limit of relative frequencies in infinite reference classes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No finite observer can directly encounter an infinite sequence; acquaintance requires immediate, non-inferential contact with its object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, frequentist probability values are always theoretical posits reached by extrapolation, not objects of direct acquaintance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Russell distinguished knowledge by acquaintance from knowledge by description: acquaintance requires a direct cognitive relation to a present object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frequency-based probability relations are abstract statistical facts about population distributions that are never themselves perceptually present to any single observer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any epistemic access to such population-level facts must proceed through inferential description, not the kind of direct phenomenal contact that acquaintance requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Frequency-based probability concerns complex contingent facts about the ratio of truth of one proposition relative to another logically independent one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We do not have direct access to such complex contingent facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Such facts can only be known through extensive observation, data gathering, or empirical research.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Any epistemic access to such population-level facts must proceed through inferen...Frequency-based probability concerns complex contingent facts about the ratio of...Frequency-based probability relations are abstract statistical facts about popul...No finite observer can directly encounter an infinite sequence; acquaintance req...
    +6 moreShow less
    On frequentist accounts (von Mises, Reichenbach), probability is defined as the ...Russell distinguished knowledge by acquaintance from knowledge by description: a...Such facts can only be known through extensive observation, data gathering, or e...The question of how we know that some observation makes probable our judgment of...Therefore, frequentist probability values are always theoretical posits reached ...We do not have direct access to such complex contingent facts.

    Similar

    If probability relations are understood as real logical relations hold...80%If one infers the existence of a probabilistic connection from some pr...80%Merely having a probability relation between noninferential evidence a...78%One also needs justification for believing that F makes probable that ...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: knowledge-acquaindescrip
    View source passageHide passage
    Most classical foundationalists at least implicitly rejected the idea that the mere obtaining of a probability relation between one’s noninferential evidence that P and the proposition Q one infers from that evidence is sufficient to acquire inferential justification or inferential knowledge. Rather, they insisted, one must be aware of or have access to the probabilistic connection that obtains between one’s premises and one’s conclusion. Direct acquaintance with facts was proposed to end a pote
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit