How can probabilistic statements be interpreted? Does probability have an ontology?
Anything can mean anything.
>>1198843
Certainly not
>>1198828
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/
That has a good survey of the existing mainstream views among philosophers of the field.
>>1198828
Following probability and trends is a perfectly valid line of thought. You already apply it to everyday things without a second thought up until now.
For example, you honestly don't know whether or not you're going to crash your car (or whatever mode of transit you use). Yet, you probably do it everyday to everywhere (of course unless you're a NEET).
You can't no nuffin, but you already assume based on probability and trends a lot.
>>1199105
davidhume.jpg
>>1199105
>>1199046
yes goy, follow the rationalists
>>1198828
Phd statistician here. This guy >>1199046 is right.What's fun is that there are different techniques built upon the different probability interpretations, with frequentism and Bayesianism being the two most common. Pretty much all techniques go to the same place given enough data, go.
Also De Finetti did nothing wrong.
>>1200385
>>Also De Finetti did nothing wrong.
what did he do
