J'ai dit plus d'une fois qu'il faudrait une nouvelle espèce de logique, qui traiterait des degrés de Probabilité. - LEIBNIZ.
In most branches of academic logic, such as the theory of the syllogism or the geometry of ideal space, all the arguments aim at demonstrative certainty. They claim to be conclusive. But many other arguments are rational and claim some weight without pretending to be certain. In Metaphysics, in Science, and in Conduct, most of the arguments, upon which we habitually base our rational beliefs, are admitted to be inconclusive in a greater or less degree. Thus for a philosophical treatment of these branches of knowledge, the study of probability is required.
The course which the history of thought has led Logic to follow has encouraged the view that doubtful arguments are not within its scope. But in the actual exercise of reason we do not wait on certainty, or deem it irrational to depend on a. doubtful argument. If logic investigates the general principles of valid thought, the study of arguments, to which it is rational to attach some weight, is as much a part of it as the study of those which are demonstrative.
To this extent, therefore, probability may be called subjective. But in the sense important to logic, probability is not subjective. It is not, that is to say, subject to human caprice. A proposition is not probable because we think it so. When once the facts are given which determine our knowledge, what is probable or improbable in these circumstances has been fixed objectively, and is independent of our opinion. The Theory of Probability is logical, therefore, because it is concerned with the degree of belief which it is rational to entertain in given conditions, and not merely with the actual beliefs of particular individuals, which may or may not be rational.
Given the body of direct knowledge which constitutes our ultimate premisses, this theory tells us what further rational beliefs, certain or probable, can be derived by valid argument from our direct knowledge. This involves purely logical relations between the propositions which embody our direct knowledge and the propositions about which we seek indirect knowledge. What particular propositions we select as the premisses of our argument naturally depends on subjective factors peculiar to ourselves; but the relations, in which other propositions stand to these, and which entitle us to probable beliefs, are objective and logical.
In ordinary speech we often describe the conclusion as being doubtful, uncertain, or only probable. But, strictly, these terms ought to be applied, either to the degree of our rational belief in the conclusion, or to the relation or argument between two sets of propositions, knowledge of which would afford grounds for a corresponding degree of rational belief.
Students of probability in the sense which is meant by the authors of typical treatises on Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung or Calcul des probabilités, will find that I do eventually reach topics with which they are familiar. But in making a serious attempt to deal with the fundamental difficulties with which all students of mathematical probabilities have met and which are notoriously unsolved, we must begin at the beginning (or almost at the beginning) and treat our subject widely. As soon as mathematical probability ceases to be the merest algebra or pretends to guide our decisions, it immediately meets with problems against which its own weapons are quite powerless. And even if we wish later on to use probability in a narrow sense, it will be well to know first what it means in the widest.
A great deal of confusion and error has arisen out of a failure to take due account of this relational aspect of probability. From the premisses "a implies b" and "a is true," we can conclude something about b - namely that b is true - which does not involve a. But, if a is so related to b, that a knowledge of it renders a probable belief in b rational, we cannot conclude anything whatever about b which has not reference to a; and it is not true that every set of self-consistent premisses which includes a has this same relation to b. It is as useless, therefore, to say "b is probable" as it would be to say "b is equal," or "b is greater than," and as unwarranted to conclude that, because a makes b probable, therefore a and c together make b probable, as to argue that because a is less than b, therefore a and c together are less than b.
Thus, when in ordinary speech we name some opinion as probable without further qualification, the phrase is generally elliptical. We mean that it is probable when certain considerations, implicitly or explicitly present to our minds at the moment, are taken into account. We use the word for the sake of shortness, just as we speak of a place as being three miles distant, when we mean three miles distant from where we are then situated, or from some starting-point to which we tacitly refer. No proposition is in itself either probable or improbable, just as no place can be intrinsically distant; and the probability of the same statement varies with the evidence presented, which is, as it were, its origin of reference. We may fix our attention on our own knowledge and, treating this as our origin, consider the probabilities of all other suppositions, - according to the usual practice which leads to the elliptical form of common speech; or we may, equally well, fix it on a proposed conclusion and consider what degree of probability this would derive from various sets of assumptions, which might constitute the corpus of knowledge of ourselves or others, or which are merely hypotheses.
Reflection will show that this account harmonises with familiar experience. There is nothing novel in the supposition that the probability of a theory turns upon the evidence by which it is supported; and it is common to assert that an opinion was probable on the evidence at first to hand, but on further information was untenable. As our knowledge or our hypothesis changes, our conclusions have new probabilities, not in themselves, but relatively to these new premisses. New logical relations have now become important, namely those between the conclusions which we are investigating and our new assumptions; but the old relations between the conclusions and the former assumptions still exist and are just as real as these new ones. It would be as absurd to deny that an opinion was probable, when at a later stage certain objections have come to light, as to deny, when we have reached our destination, that it was ever three miles distant; and the opinion still is probable in relation to the old hypotheses, just as the destination is still three miles distant from our starting-point.
This opinion is, from the nature of the case, incapable of positive proof. The presumption in its favour must arise partly out of our failure to find a definition, and partly because the notion presents itself to the mind as something new and independent. If the statement that an opinion was probable on the evidence at first to hand, but became untenable on further information, is not, solely concerned with psychological belief, I do not know how the element of logical doubt is to be defined, or how its substance is to be stated, in terms of the other indefinables of formal logic. The attempts at definition, which have been made hitherto, will be criticised in later chapters. I do not believe that any of them accurately represent that particular logical relation which we have in our minds when we speak of the probability of an argument.
In the great majority of cases the term "probable" seems to be used consistently by different persons to describe the same concept. Differences of opinion have not been due, I think, to a radical ambiguity of language. In any case a desire to reduce the indefinables of logic can easily be carried too far. Even if a definition is discoverable in the end, there is no harm in postponing it until our enquiry into the object of definition is far advanced. In the case of "probability" the object before the mind is so familiar that the danger of misdescribing its qualities through lack of a definition is less than if it were a highly abstract entity far removed from the normal channels of thought.
The URL of this page is: