On 19 Sep 2000, Herman Rubin wrote:
> >> This would exclude the application of probability to such
> >> things as nuclear physics. While we have to use
> >> observations to draw inferences, the probabilities of
> >> interest are not those about the observations, but about
> >> the underlying process.
No, the probabilities of interest are both those about
the observations and those associated with the underlying
process.
One could take the view that predictions of probabilities of observable
events are a means to an end: the continual development of
better and better models of the underlying process. However, Hume's
paradox guarantees that we will never be able to certify a given model as
the "final one".
Alternatively, one could take the view that the continual improvement
of models is a means to an end: improved calculations of probabilities
of observed events. Science can and has delivered such calculations
which have proven tremendously useful, in the form of applications, even
to non-scientists.
A less partisan view is to respect the mutual feedback and interplay of
improved models of underlying processes and improved calculations of
observable events. In this view both types of probabilities are
"of interest".
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
