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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Understanding probability in terms of frequency makes it impossible to have direct acquaintance with probabilistic connections between propositions.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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