Comments on “Logicism and probabilism”

Comments

Probability Before Pascal

“Probabilism” is also an older term, associated with Catholicism, and having to with the liklihood of some act as being sinful, or not. In one variant interpretation of it, it was a numerical average of the number of opinions of religious authorities, for or against. In other formulations, it was sufficient to find just one scholar who supported a given position; this eventually lead to the crisis of “Laxism” in the Catholic Church, as you could usually find some opinion that supported your desired course of action. Laxism was ultimately rejected, but you can see a modern variant of it, continuing to this day in Islam, where any Mullah can decree a fatwah for just about any action, never mind that as a whole, the collection is self-contradictory.

All this is explored in a marvelous book, “The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability before Pascal”, James Franklin . It starts in Ancient Egypt and Judaic traditions, and moves on to the concept of a “Half-Proof” in Medieval times, namely, that in a criminal case, you needed two witnesses to testify. The foundations of this other concept of “probability” were so strongly laid, that they live on in our modern justice system, with terms such as “probable cause”, “preponderance of evidence” and the like.

The book is a review of the history of probability, liklihood and evidence, up to the very first steps where it was formalized as a mathematical discipline. It’s greatest revelation (to me) is that Western society, especially Law, is founded on strong ideas developed by the Scholastics (and others) of Medieval times. The cross-over is that law is the rationalization and codification of intuitive moral precepts (thus, it’s anchoring in religion). It’s not science, as we know it; its the attempt to apply rationality and evidence to intuitive ideas about crime and well-being.

There’s also Ian Hacking’s

Peter's picture

There’s also Ian Hacking’s The Emergence of Probability which covers some of the same ground. I remember it being a mostly good read, although Hacking’s one of those authors who has certain tics - I often found myself saying, “oh, that’s just another Hackingism” at some sticky point and moved on. It’s been quite a while so I can’t remember what I thought those tics were…

Add new comment

Navigation

This page is in the section Part One: Taking rationalism seriously,
      which is in In the cells of the eggplant,
      which is in ⚒ Fluid understanding: meta-rationality,
      which is in ⚒ Sailing the seas of meaningness,
      which is in Meaningness and Time: past, present, future.

The next page in this section is The Spanish Inquisition.

This page’s topics are History of ideas and Rationalism.

General explanation: Meaningness is a hypertext book (in progress), plus a “metablog” that comments on it. The book begins with an appetizer. Alternatively, you might like to look at its table of contents, or some other starting points. Classification of pages by topics supplements the book and metablog structures. Terms with dotted underlining (example: meaningness) show a definition if you click on them. Pages marked with ⚒ are still under construction. Copyright ©2010–2020 David Chapman. Some links are part of Amazon Affiliate Program.