Talk:Propensity probability

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology

Statistics Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Popper[edit]

Added references to 4 of Karl Popper's works on propensity probability. These were all gleaned from "Self and It's Brain", and are not something I have read personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.193.162 (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main challenge[edit]

The claim that the main challenge of propenetiy is to define what it means is totally false and shows no familiarity with the problems facing propensity theory, such as Humphrey's paradox, the testability of propensity claims etc. Defining the word is considerably less important than these problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.92.67.45 (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy[edit]

This article is in fact a copy of a part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_interpretations. JaapB (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant?[edit]

Why is the section Principal Principle of David Lewis in this article? Is it really a propensitists position? RJFJR (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell it is currently irrelevent. But it could be made relevent by making explicit that Pronpensity theories, or at least most of their formulations, cannot meet one of david Lewis's desiderata, which is that probabilities should be able to constrain, or relate to, credences - this is the principal principle. This is begging the justificationist question; Propensity Theories, esp the one developed by Popper, were develoepd to dispense with probability and its link with justification (epistemic probability), because it lead to very many difficulties. To say that this is a desiderata, and that we should dispdence with Pronenity theory on this basis, is to jump over the fact that epistemic probability was criticised by Karl Popper, that is why he developed firstly a frequency-type theory and then the propensity theory.

Furthermore, the principal Principle arises out of Miller's criticism of the link between credences and probability, in his Paper a paradox of information. It would be interesting to see this controversy brought out more. It seems to be an overlooked, but important debate. 155.192.33.250 (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]