Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
1161291 | Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics | 2010 | 14 Pages |
Abstract
We often rely on symmetries to infer outcomes’ probabilities, as when we infer that each side of a fair coin is equally likely to come up on a given toss. Why are these inferences successful? I argue against answering this question with an a priori indifference principle. Reasons to reject such a principle are familiar, yet instructive. They point to a new, empirical explanation for the success of our probabilistic predictions. This has implications for indifference reasoning generally. I argue that a priori symmetries need never constrain our probability attributions, even for initial credences.
Related Topics
Physical Sciences and Engineering
Physics and Astronomy
Physics and Astronomy (General)
Authors
Jill North,