7 ms·

In Defense of Probability (1985) [pdf]

47 points by kdoherty 9y ago

dogruck 9y ago
Why is there a glaring typo in the first sentence of the abstract? "In this paper, it is argued that probability theory, when used correctly, is suffrcient for the task of reasoning under uncertainty."
- xtacy 9y ago
  The paper is probably OCRed.
  - mcny 9y ago
    We can fix it. I have started a git repo for this https://github.com/michaelchristophernewyork/probability https://github.com/michaelchristophernewyork/probability please help clean up if you have time.
  - mturmon 9y ago
    Good point. The rendering of "sufficient" probably uses the triple-ligature for "ffi", where all 3 characters are merged. The author, Peter Cheeseman, is a reputable figure and a solid practitioner. I'm sure he's just as annoyed that, on the second page, his own name is misspelled as "Cheesemart" ;-). People may recognize him as a co-creator of the AutoClass software for Bayesian clustering, which was very popular in the late 1990s - the explanatory paper has 1700 citations.
  - anonymousiam 9y ago
    Author's name is also misspelled in the header on one of the early pages. It's obviously been scanned and OCRed.
  - CupOfJava 9y ago
    OCR has come a long way, but still has lots to improve.
j-pb 9y ago
Its ironic, today we could really use a paper "in defense of fuzzy logic"
- protomyth 9y ago
  Having used a fuzzy logic model to do some analysis on a social project in the 90's and a heating problem around the same time frame, I don't think fuzzy logic needs a defense, it needs a PR agency.
- tnecniv 9y ago
  What is the difference between fuzzy logic and a Bayesian interpretation of probability?
  - kirkules 9y ago
    This region is 30% covered vs. there is a 30% chance this region is (read: fully) covered.
    - hammock 9y ago
      I remember hearing this is the correct way to interpret some weather forecasts. 90% rain could mean certain rain over 90% of the area, rather than a 9/10 chance of rain over all the area
      - btilly 9y ago
        This is correct, or at least was as of 25 years ago when the question came up in conversation with a professor of mine, I asked on Usenet, and got a response from someone who worked for the National Weather Service. Apparently they had specifically debated about whether to weight it on population density. In other words should they try to make it be so that a 90% chance of rain means that 90% of the people listening to the forecast encounter rain? They decided not to on the principle that people do not care equally about forecasts. Farmers care more than city dwellers, and city dwellers who care about forecasts pay more attention when they are deciding whether to take a trip to the country. Sorting out all of these issues to produce a perfect forecast for the audience was a can of worms that they decided not to dive into, and instead they kept to the simple, unambiguous and easily measured percentage of land area.
jonnycomputer 9y ago
I suspect that the author's assertion that the degree of belief model is sufficient to account for vagueness in propositions cannot really be defended. Its also obvious the author is not a logician.
jonnycomputer 9y ago
I could add that truth-likeness might not adequately accommodated by a subjective-probability degree-of-belief model. For example, while I might believe both of these propositions to be true, p=1, one is more uhh truth like: Donald Trump weighs 107 kg. Donald Trump weighs less than the sun.
te_platt 9y ago
If you are interested in a deeper dive into the topics covered in this paper I would suggest "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" by E. T. Jaynes available athttp://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cpreambl.pdf http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cpreambl.pdf It is probably (ha!) the most enlightening math book I have ever read.
- pureGuano 9y ago
  It's a very good book. Just be aware that it is very one-sided in favor of the Bayesian view.
  - kgwgk 9y ago
    That's what makes it a very good book!
- efm 9y ago
  A more balanced, current treatment is in Bradley Efron and Trevor Hastie's Computer Age Statistical Inference (2016) [1] [1] https://web.stanford.edu/~hastie/CASI/ https://web.stanford.edu/~hastie/CASI/
fperez_org 9y ago
There's a higher quality PDF available [here](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.13.2787&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.13....), it has a credit footnote: "Converted to electronic version by: Roby Joehanes, Kansas State University." That person already did the OCR cleaning (and the fonts are nicer).

47 points by kdoherty 9y ago

Why is there a glaring typo in the first sentence of the abstract? "In this paper, it is argued that probability theory, when used correctly, is suffrcient for the task of reasoning under uncertainty."

xtacy 9y ago
The paper is probably OCRed.
- mcny 9y ago
  We can fix it. I have started a git repo for this https://github.com/michaelchristophernewyork/probability https://github.com/michaelchristophernewyork/probability please help clean up if you have time.
- mturmon 9y ago
  Good point. The rendering of "sufficient" probably uses the triple-ligature for "ffi", where all 3 characters are merged. The author, Peter Cheeseman, is a reputable figure and a solid practitioner. I'm sure he's just as annoyed that, on the second page, his own name is misspelled as "Cheesemart" ;-). People may recognize him as a co-creator of the AutoClass software for Bayesian clustering, which was very popular in the late 1990s - the explanatory paper has 1700 citations.
- anonymousiam 9y ago
  Author's name is also misspelled in the header on one of the early pages. It's obviously been scanned and OCRed.
- CupOfJava 9y ago
  OCR has come a long way, but still has lots to improve.

j-pb 9y ago

Its ironic, today we could really use a paper "in defense of fuzzy logic"

protomyth 9y ago
Having used a fuzzy logic model to do some analysis on a social project in the 90's and a heating problem around the same time frame, I don't think fuzzy logic needs a defense, it needs a PR agency.
tnecniv 9y ago
What is the difference between fuzzy logic and a Bayesian interpretation of probability?
- kirkules 9y ago
  This region is 30% covered vs. there is a 30% chance this region is (read: fully) covered.
  - hammock 9y ago
    I remember hearing this is the correct way to interpret some weather forecasts. 90% rain could mean certain rain over 90% of the area, rather than a 9/10 chance of rain over all the area
    - btilly 9y ago
      This is correct, or at least was as of 25 years ago when the question came up in conversation with a professor of mine, I asked on Usenet, and got a response from someone who worked for the National Weather Service. Apparently they had specifically debated about whether to weight it on population density. In other words should they try to make it be so that a 90% chance of rain means that 90% of the people listening to the forecast encounter rain? They decided not to on the principle that people do not care equally about forecasts. Farmers care more than city dwellers, and city dwellers who care about forecasts pay more attention when they are deciding whether to take a trip to the country. Sorting out all of these issues to produce a perfect forecast for the audience was a can of worms that they decided not to dive into, and instead they kept to the simple, unambiguous and easily measured percentage of land area.

jonnycomputer 9y ago

I suspect that the author's assertion that the degree of belief model is sufficient to account for vagueness in propositions cannot really be defended. Its also obvious the author is not a logician.

jonnycomputer 9y ago

I could add that truth-likeness might not adequately accommodated by a subjective-probability degree-of-belief model. For example, while I might believe both of these propositions to be true, p=1, one is more uhh truth like: Donald Trump weighs 107 kg. Donald Trump weighs less than the sun.

te_platt 9y ago

If you are interested in a deeper dive into the topics covered in this paper I would suggest "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" by E. T. Jaynes available athttp://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cpreambl.pdf http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cpreambl.pdf It is probably (ha!) the most enlightening math book I have ever read.

pureGuano 9y ago
It's a very good book. Just be aware that it is very one-sided in favor of the Bayesian view.
- kgwgk 9y ago
  That's what makes it a very good book!
efm 9y ago
A more balanced, current treatment is in Bradley Efron and Trevor Hastie's Computer Age Statistical Inference (2016) [1] [1] https://web.stanford.edu/~hastie/CASI/ https://web.stanford.edu/~hastie/CASI/

fperez_org 9y ago

There's a higher quality PDF available [here](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.13.2787&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.13....), it has a credit footnote: "Converted to electronic version by: Roby Joehanes, Kansas State University." That person already did the OCR cleaning (and the fonts are nicer).