A Rejoinder to Crovelli’s “The Courtiers of Confusion”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52195/pm.v19i2.822Abstract
This paper is a response to Crovelli’s rejoinder to our original critique of his objection to Ludwig von Mises’ supposedly misguided adoption of frequentism. First, we demonstrate the unimportance of Crovelli’s favoured distinction between the probability and method for generating probabilities. Further on, we show that on some reading of “subjectivism” his claim that determinism necessitates embracing the subjective definition of probability is simply trivial. After clearing up these misconceptions, we state what we believe are two real points of disagreements between us and Crovelli. Specifically, we argue — contra Crovelli — that (1) determinism does not require construing probabilities as degrees of beliefs and that (2) frequentism is compatible with both the deterministic and the indeterministic worldview. Finally, we enumerate some additional challenges Crovelli left unaddressed and which, we believe, his theory would be powerless to address in any case.
References
Block, W. (1980): “On Robert Nozick’s ‘On Austrian Methodology’,”
Inquiry, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 397-444.
— (2009a): “Rejoinder to Hoppe on Indifference,” Quarterly Journal
of Austrian Economics, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 52-59.
— (2009.b): “Rejoinder to Machaj on Indifference,” New Perspectives
on Political Economy, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 65-71.
— (2012): “Response to Ben O’Neill on indifference,” Dialogue, No.
, pp. 76-93.
Block, W. with William Barnett II. (2010): “Rejoinder to Hoppe on
Indifference, Once Again,” Reason Papers, Vol. 32, pp. 141-154.
Charles, D. (ed.) (2010): Definition in Greek Philosophy, Oxford, online
edn, Oxford Academic.
Crovelli, M. (2009a): “On the Possibility of Assigning Probabilities
to Singular Cases, or: Probability is Subjective Too!,” Libertarian
Papers, Vol.1, No. 26, pp. 1-17.
— (2009b): “Has David Howden Vindicated Richard von Mises’s
Definition of Probability?,” Libertarian Papers, Vol.1, No. 44, pp.
-7.
— (2010): “A Challenge to Ludwig von Mises’s Theory of Probability,” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 2, No. 23, pp. 1-15.
— (2011): “Can Probability Be Subjective and Objective at the Same
Time? A Reply to Arnold Baise,” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 3, No. 28.
— (2012): “All Probabilistic Methods Assume a Subjective Definition of Probability,” Libertarian Papers, Vol.4, No.1, pp. 163-174.
— (forthcoming). “The Courtiers of Confusion: A Reply to Wysocki
and Block,” Revista Procesos de Mercado.
Hoppe, H. (2005): “Must Austrians Embrace Indifference?,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.8, No.4, pp. 87-91.
— (2009): “Further Notes on Preference and Indifference: Rejoinder to Block,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 12,
No. 1, pp. 60-64
Kolgomorov, A. (1950): Foundations of Probability Theory, English
edition, Chelsea Publishing Co.
Mackie, J. (1973): Truth, Probability and Paradox, Oxford at the Clarendon Press.
Mises, L. von (1949): Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, N.Y.:
Foundation for Economic Education [4th rev. ed. Irvington-on-Hudson, 1996].
— (1985): Theory and History, Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises
Institute.
— (1957): Probability, Statistics and Truth, New York [2nd Revised ed.,
.
Popper, K. (1959): “The Propensity Interpretation of Probability,”, British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 10, pp. 25-42.
Wysocki, I. and W. BLOCK (2017): “Caplan on Probability: A Critique,” Dialogue, Vol. 3, pp. 1-11.
— (2020): “Crovelli on Probability: A Critique.” Revista Procesos de
Mercado. Vol. XVII, No. 2, pp. 245-272.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2023-02-21 (3)
- 2023-02-20 (2)
- 2023-02-20 (1)
