Search

In this paper we recall some results for conditional events, compound conditionals, conditional random quantities, p-consistency, and p-entailment. Then, we show the equivalence between bets on conditionals and conditional bets, by reviewing de Finetti's trivalent analysis of conditionals. But our approach goes beyond de Finetti's early trivalent logical analysis and is based on his later ideas, aiming to take his proposals to a higher level. We examine two recent articles that explore trivalent logics for conditionals and their definitions of logical validity and compare them with our approach to compound conditionals. We prove a Probabilistic Deduction Theorem for conditional events. After that, we study some probabilistic deduction theorems, by presenting several examples. We focus on iterated conditionals and the invalidity of the Import-Export principle in the light of our Probabilistic Deduction Theorem. We use the inference from a disjunction, "$A$ or $B$", to the conditional,"if not-$A$ then $B$", as an example to show the invalidity of the Import-Export principle. We also introduce a General Import-Export principle and we illustrate it by examining some p-valid inference rules of System P. Finally, we briefly discuss some related work relevant to AI.

We present probabilistic approaches to check the validity of selected connexive principles within the setting of coherence. Connexive logics emerged from the intuition that conditionals of the form "If $\sim A$, then $A$", should not hold, since the conditional's antecedent $\sim A$ contradicts its consequent $A$. Our approach covers this intuition by observing that for an event A the only coherent probability assessment on the conditional event $A|\overline{A}$ is $p(A|\overline{A})=0$. Moreover, connexive logics aim to capture the intuition that conditionals should express some "connection" between the antecedent and the consequent or, in terms of inferences, validity should require some connection between the premise set and the conclusion. This intuition is covered by a number of principles, a selection of which we analyze in our contribution. We present two approaches to connexivity within coherence-based probability logic. Specifically, we analyze connections between antecedents and consequents firstly, in terms of probabilistic constraints on conditional events (in the sense of defaults, or negated defaults) and secondly, in terms of constraints on compounds of conditionals and iterated conditionals. After developing different notions of negations and notions of validity, we analyze the following connexive principles within both approaches: Aristotle's Theses, Aristotle's Second Thesis, Abelard's First Principle and selected versions of Boethius' Theses. We conclude by remarking that coherence-based probability logic offers a rich language to investigate the validity of various connexive principles., Comment: The final authenticated publication will be available online at https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030867713

We present a coherence-based probability semantics and probability propagation rules for (categorical) Aristotelian syllogisms. For framing the Aristotelian syllogisms as probabilistic inferences, we interpret basic syllogistic sentence types A, E, I, O by suitable precise and imprecise conditional probability assessments. Then, we define validity of probabilistic inferences and probabilistic notions of the existential import which is required, for the validity of the syllogisms. Based on a generalization of de Finetti's fundamental theorem to conditional probability, we investigate the coherent probability propagation rules of argument forms of the syllogistic Figures I, II, and III, respectively. These results allow to show, for all three figures, that each traditionally valid syllogism is also valid in our coherence-based probability semantics. Moreover, we interpret the basic syllogistic sentence types by suitable defaults and negated defaults. Thereby, we build a bridge from our probability semantics of Aristotelian syllogisms to nonmonotonic reasoning. Then we show that reductio by conversion does not work while reductio ad impossibile can be applied in our approach. Finally, we show how the proposed probability propagation rules can be used to analyze syllogisms involving generalized quantifiers (like Most).

We analyze selected iterated conditionals in the framework of conditional random quantities. We point out that it is instructive to examine Lewis's triviality result, which shows the conditions a conditional must satisfy for its probability to be the conditional probability. In our approach, however, we avoid triviality because the import-export principle is invalid. We then analyze an example of reasoning under partial knowledge where, given a conditional if $A$ then $C$ as information, the probability of $A$ should intuitively increase. We explain this intuition by making some implicit background information explicit. We consider several (generalized) iterated conditionals, which allow us to formalize different kinds of latent information. We verify that for these iterated conditionals the prevision is greater than or equal to the probability of $A$. We also investigate the lower and upper bounds of the Affirmation of the Consequent inference. We conclude our study with some remarks on the supposed ''independence'' of two conditionals, and we interpret this property as uncorrelation between two random quantities.

This chapter presents probability logic as a rationality framework for human reasoning under uncertainty. Selected formal-normative aspects of probability logic are discussed in the light of experimental evidence. Specifically, probability logic is characterized as a generalization of bivalent truth-functional propositional logic (short "logic"), as being connexive, and as being nonmonotonic. The chapter discusses selected argument forms and associated uncertainty propagation rules. Throughout the chapter, the descriptive validity of probability logic is compared to logic, which was used as the gold standard of reference for assessing the rationality of human reasoning in the 20th century., Comment: 16 pages, handbook chapter contribution

In this paper we exploit the notions of conjoined and iterated conditionals, which are defined in the setting of coherence by means of suitable conditional random quantities with values in the interval $[0,1]$. We examine the iterated conditional $(B|K)|(A|H)$, by showing that $A|H$ p-entails $B|K$ if and only if $(B|K)|(A|H) = 1$. Then, we show that a p-consistent family $\mathcal{F}=\{E_1|H_1,E_2|H_2\}$ p-entails a conditional event $E_3|H_3$ if and only if $E_3|H_3=1$, or $(E_3|H_3)|QC(\mathcal{S})=1$ for some nonempty subset $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathcal{F}$, where $QC(\mathcal{S})$ is the quasi conjunction of the conditional events in $\mathcal{S}$. Then, we examine the inference rules $And$, $Cut$, $Cautious $ $Monotonicity$, and $Or$ of System~P and other well known inference rules ($Modus$ $Ponens$, $Modus$ $Tollens$, $Bayes$). We also show that $QC(\mathcal{F})|\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{F})=1$, where $\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{F})$ is the conjunction of the conditional events in $\mathcal{F}$. We characterize p-entailment by showing that $\mathcal{F}$ p-entails $E_3|H_3$ if and only if $(E_3|H_3)|\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{F})=1$. Finally, we examine \emph{Denial of the antecedent} and \emph{Affirmation of the consequent}, where the p-entailment of $(E_3|H_3)$ from $\mathcal{F}$ does not hold, by showing that $(E_3|H_3)|\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{F})\neq1.$

Modus ponens (\emph{from $A$ and "if $A$ then $C$" infer $C$}, short: MP) is one of the most basic inference rules. The probabilistic MP allows for managing uncertainty by transmitting assigned uncertainties from the premises to the conclusion (i.e., from $P(A)$ and $P(C|A)$ infer $P(C)$). In this paper, we generalize the probabilistic MP by replacing $A$ by the conditional event $A|H$. The resulting inference rule involves iterated conditionals (formalized by conditional random quantities) and propagates previsions from the premises to the conclusion. Interestingly, the propagation rules for the lower and the upper bounds on the conclusion of the generalized probabilistic MP coincide with the respective bounds on the conclusion for the (non-nested) probabilistic MP.

In this paper we study selected argument forms involving counterfactuals and indicative conditionals under uncertainty. We selected argument forms to explore whether people with an Eastern cultural background reason differently about conditionals compared to Westerners, because of the differences in the location of negations. In a 2x2 between-participants design, 63 Japanese university students were allocated to four groups, crossing indicative conditionals and counterfactuals, and each presented in two random task orders. The data show close agreement between the responses of Easterners and Westerners. The modal responses provide strong support for the hypothesis that conditional probability is the best predictor for counterfactuals and indicative conditionals. Finally, the grand majority of the responses are probabilistically coherent, which endorses the psychological plausibility of choosing coherence-based probability logic as a rationality framework for psychological reasoning research.

We present a formal measure of argument strength, which combines the ideas that conclusions of strong arguments are (i) highly probable and (ii) their uncertainty is relatively precise. Likewise, arguments are weak when their conclusion probability is low or when it is highly imprecise. We show how the proposed measure provides a new model of the Ellsberg paradox. Moreover, we further substantiate the psychological plausibility of our approach by an experiment (N = 60). The data show that the proposed measure predicts human inferences in the original Ellsberg task and in corresponding argument strength tasks. Finally, we report qualitative data taken from structured interviews on folk psychological conceptions on what argument strength means.

We study abductive, causal, and non-causal conditionals in indicative and counterfactual formulations using probabilistic truth table tasks under incomplete probabilistic knowledge (N = 80). We frame the task as a probability-logical inference problem. The most frequently observed response type across all conditions was a class of conditional event interpretations of conditionals; it was followed by conjunction interpretations. An interesting minority of participants neglected some of the relevant imprecision involved in the premises when inferring lower or upper probability bounds on the target conditional/counterfactual ("halfway responses"). We discuss the results in the light of coherence-based probability logic and the new paradigm psychology of reasoning., Comment: typos corrected

Various semantics for studying the square of opposition and the hexagon of opposition have been proposed recently. We interpret sentences by imprecise (set-valued) probability assessments on a finite sequence of conditional events. We introduce the acceptability of a sentence within coherence-based probability theory. We analyze the relations of the square and of the hexagon in terms of acceptability. Then, we show how to construct probabilistic versions of the square and of the hexagon of opposition by forming suitable tripartitions of the set of all coherent assessments. Finally, as an application, we present new versions of the square and of the hexagon involving generalized quantifiers.

There is wide support in logic, philosophy, and psychology for the hypothesis that the probability of the indicative conditional of natural language, $P(\textit{if } A \textit{ then } B)$, is the conditional probability of $B$ given $A$, $P(B|A)$. We identify a conditional which is such that $P(\textit{if } A \textit{ then } B)= P(B|A)$ with de Finetti's conditional event, $B|A$. An objection to making this identification in the past was that it appeared unclear how to form compounds and iterations of conditional events. In this paper, we illustrate how to overcome this objection with a probabilistic analysis, based on coherence, of these compounds and iterations. We interpret the compounds and iterations as conditional random quantities which, given some logical dependencies, may reduce to conditional events. We show how the inference to $B|A$ from $A$ and $B$ can be extended to compounds and iterations of both conditional events and biconditional events. Moreover, we determine the respective uncertainty propagation rules. Finally, we make some comments on extending our analysis to counterfactuals.

We study probabilistically informative (weak) versions of transitivity, by using suitable definitions of defaults and negated defaults, in the setting of coherence and imprecise probabilities. We represent p-consistent sequences of defaults and/or negated defaults by g-coherent imprecise probability assessments on the respective sequences of conditional events. Finally, we prove the coherent probability propagation rules for Weak Transitivity and the validity of selected inference patterns by proving the p-entailment for the associated knowledge bases.