The uses

of Argument
stephen E.Toulmin

updated Edition
T h e Uses of Argument

Updated Edition

STEPHEN E. TOULMIN
Universily ofSoutíiern California

CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
 c:AMiiRii)t;i. U N i v i u s n v i'Ri.ss
C a m b r i d g e , N e w York, M e l b o u r i i c , M a d r i d , C^ape T o w n ,
S i n g a p o r e , S a o Paulo, D e i l i i , T o k y o , M é x i c o C i t y

C a m b r i d g e IJniversity Press Contents

I h e K d i n b u r g h B u i l d i n g , C:ambridge C B 2 8 R U , U K

P u b l i s h e d i n tiie U n i t e d States o f A m e r i c a b y
C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, N e w York

www.cambridge.org
I n f o r m a t i o n 011 this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521827485

© C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press 1958
© S t e p h e n E . T o u l m i n 2003

l i l i s p u b l i c a t i o n is i n copyright. Subject to statutory exception

a n d to the provisions o f relevant collective licensiiig agreements,
Preface to tile npdntedEdition ' page\\\
n o r e p r o d u c t i o n o f a n y part m a y take place w i t l i o u t the w r i t t c n Freface to tlie Paperback Edition xi
p e r m i s s i o n o f C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press. Preface to the Eirst Edition xiii

First p u b l i s h e d 1958
Introduction 1
First paperback e d i t i o n 1964
I . Fields o f A r g u m e n t a n d M o d a l s 11
U p d a t e d e d i t i o n first p u b l i s h e d 2003
The Pilases of an Argiinient it,
R e p r i n t e d 2005, 2 0 0 6 , 2 0 0 7 (rwice), 2008
Inipossibilities and Impioprieties 21
A catalogue recordfor this publication is availahle from the British Library Torce and Criteria 28
The TieldT)ef)endrnre of Our Standards 3'.}
Library of Congress cataloguing in publication data Qiieslionsfor Ihe Agenda 36
T o u l m i n , S t e p h e n F.deiston. I I . Probability 41
T h e uses o f a r g u m e n t / Stephen F l ' I b u l m i n . - U p d a t e d e d . / Know, I Pro mise, Probably • 44
p. cm. 'Improbable Bul True' 4c)
I n c l u d e s bibliographical references (p.) a n d indexes. Improper Claims and Mistaken Cl/iims 53
I S B N 0-521-82748-5 - I S B N 0-521-53483-6 (pb.) The Lahyrínth of Probability r,7
I. Logic. 2. Rca.soning. I. Tide. Probability and Expectation (h
BCr77.'r6 2003 Probability-Kflations and Probabilification (36
i68-dc2i 2003043502 Is the Word 'Probability'Ambigiious? (ig
Probability-Theory and Psychology 77
ISBN 978-0-521-82748-5 H a r d b a c k
The Dnielopment of Our Probabdity-Concepts 82
ISBN 978-0-521-53483-3 Paperback
I I I . T h e Layoiit of Argunients 87
C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press has n o responsibiliry for the persistence o r The Pattern of an Argument: Data and Warrants 8()
accuracy o f U R L s for external or t h i r d - p a r t y internet wcbsites referred to i n The Pattern ofan Argument: Backing Our Warrants 95
this p u b l i c a t i o n , a n d does riot guarantee that a n y contení o n s u c h websites is, Ambiguities in the Syllogism 100
or w i l l r e n i a i n , accurate or appropriate. I n f o r m a t i o n regarding prices, travel The Notion of 'Universal Preniisses' 101^
timetables, a n d other factu,il i n f o r m a t i o n given i n this w o r k is correct at The Nolion ofEormal Validity 110
the time o f first p r i n t i n g b u t C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press does n o t guarantee
V
the accuracy o f s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n thercafter.
vi Ciiiilnils
Analytir and Subsianllal Aignwinis
The Peculiarities ofAnalylir Argnments
Some Crucial Dislinclions
The Perils of Simplicity
IV. W o r k i n g L o g i c anci I d e a l i s e d L o g i c
An Hypothesis and Its Consequences
The Verification ofThis Hypothesis
The írreleiiance of Analytic Criteria
Lofrical Modcdities
Logic as a System of Eterna! Truths
System-Building and Systemalic Necessity
V. T h e O i i g i i i s o f F.pi.stomological T h c o r y
Eurther Consequences ofOur Hypothesis
Can Substantial Arguments be Redeeined? I: Transcendentalism
Can Substantial Argiiments be Redeemed^ ü: Phenomenalism
and Srepticism
Substantial Arguments Do Not Need Redeeming
TheJustification of Induction
Intuition and the Mechanism of Cognition
The Irreleimnce of Ihe Analytic Ideal • 228
Conchision
References
Index
114
118
i'-T) Prc'lace lo the Updated Edition
'31
136
143
153
156
163
• 174
195
201
20() B o o k s a r e Uke c h u c h e n . T h e y leave h o m e , i n a k e n e w f r i e n d s , but 1 arely
c a l i h o m e , eveii collect. Y o u ( i n d oiit what they have b e e n i i p to o n l y by
211 c h a n c e . A m a n at a party t u r n s out to be o n e o f ihose n e w f r i e n d s . 'So
214 y o u a r e G e o r g e ' s father? - I m a g i n e t h a t ! '
217 So has b e e n the r e l a t i o n between Tlie Uses of Argument a n d its author.
221
W h e n I wrote it, m y aiin was strictly j ) h i l o s o p h i c a l ; to c r i t i c i z e the as-
s u m p t i o n , m a d e by most A n g l o - A m e r i c a n a c a d e m i c p h i l o s o p l i e r s , that
'•¿33 any significant a r g u m e n t c a n be p i i t i n f o r m a l terms: n o t j u s t as a syllogisrn,
since for Aristotle h i i n s e l f any i n f e i e n c e c a n be c a l l e d a ' s y l l o g i s m ' o r
-'39
' l i n k i n g o f statements', but a rigidly denionstrative d e d u c t i o n o f the k i n d
241
to be f o u n d i n E u c l i d e a n geometry. T h u s was c r e a t e d the P l a t o n i c t i a d i -
t i o n that, s o m e two m i l l e n n i a later, was r e v i v e d by R e n e Descartes. R e a d e r s
o f Cosrnopolis, o r m y m o r e receut Return to Reason, will be ( a m i l i a r with this
g e n e r a l view o f m i n e .
I n n o way l i a d I set out to e x p o u n d a t h e o r y o f r h e t o r i c o r a r g u m e n t a -
t i o n : iny c o n c e r n was with t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u i y epistemology, n o l i n f o r m a l
logic. Still less l i a d I i n m i n d a n a n a l y t i c a l i n o d e l l i k e that w h i c h , a m o n g
scholars o f ( x ) i i i n i u i i i c a t i o n , carne to be c a l l e d 'the T o u l m i n m o d e l ' .
M a n y readers i n fact gave m e a n h i s t o r i c a l b a c k g i o u n d that c o n s i g i i e d
m e to a p r e m a t u r e d e a t h . W h e n my fiancée was r e a d i i i g L a w , f o r iiistance,
a fellow-stiident l e m a r k e d o\\i u n u s i i a l s u r n a n i e : bis g i r l f r i e n d [ h e ex-
p l a i n e d ] h a d c o m e across it i n o n e o f h e r textbooks, but w h e n h e r e p o r t e d
that D o i i n a was m a r r y i n g the author, she r e p l i e d , ' T h a t ' s i m p o s s i b l e : H e ' s
dead!'
vü
\i Prt'laa' to Ihr ( fídnird ¡ülifioti l'iipKi- til Ihr l pdtilril lúlilion ix

My ri'íK l i o i i to lu-iiig (so l o say) ' a d o i j l i - d ' by i h f C o m i u i m i c a t i o n Sonic p c o p l c will i i i n c i i i b d D a v i d I l u i n e ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f his TreatLse
( ' o i n i ) n m i t y was, I confess, loss i n q u i s i t i v e i h a n i l s h o u l d have bct-ii. E v c n of Jliiniun Sol un—siiiiig by its s i m i l a r l y lujstile early rece|)tion—as hav-
the fact that the late G i l b e i t R y l e gave the book to O l t o B i i x l to revicw, i n g ' l a l l e i i s l i l l - l i o i i i I r o i i i the press'. O n e c o u l d h a r d l y ask f o r b e t t c r
a n d D I B i r d w r o t e o f it as b e i i i g a "revival o f the Tapies" n i a d e no i i n - compaiiy.
p r e s s i o n o n m e . O n l y w h e i i 1 started w o r k i n g i n M e d i c a l E t h i c s , a n d I
r e r e a d A r i s t o t l e w i l h greater u n d e r s t a n d i n g , d i d the p o i i i t o f this c o i n - Stephen T o u l m i n
m e n t a r y s i n k i n . ( T h e book, Tlie Abuse of Casuistry, the s c h o l a r l y research L o s A n g e l e s , July 2002
f o r w h i c h was largely the w o r k o f m y fellow-author, A l b e r t R . J o n s e n ,
was the íiist s o l i d p r o d u c t o f that c h a n g e o f m i n d . ) T a k i n g a l l things
together, o u r c o l l a b o r a t i o n , first o n the N a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n for the
P r o t e c t i o n o f I h i i n a n R e s e a r c h SubjecLs, a n d s i i b s e q u e n l l y o n the book,
left US w i t h a p i c t u r e o f A r i s t o t l e as m o r e o f a pragmatist, a n d less o f a for-
m a l i s l , i b a n h i s t o r i a n s o f t h o i i g h t have t e n d e d to assume s i n c e the H i g h
Middlc Ages.

T r u c , the earliest books o f A r i s t o t l e ' s Organon a r e still k n o w n as the

Prior muí Posterior Analytirs, but this was, o f c o u r s e , i n t e n d e d to contrast
t h e m w i t h the later books o n E t h i c s , Politics, Aesthetics, a n d R h e t o r i c .
( T h e o p e n i n g o f the Rhetoric i n fact takes u p a r g u m e n t s that A r i s t o t l e
h a d i n c l u d e d i n the N i c o m a c h e a n E t h i c s . ) So, after a l l , O t t o B i r d h a d
m a d e a n i m p o r t a n t p o i n l . I f I w e r e r e w r i t i n g this b o o k today, I w o u l d
p o i i i t to A r i s t o t l e ' s contrast between ' g e n e r a l ' a n d ' s p e c i a l ' t ( j p i ( s as a
way o f t h r o w i n g e l e a r e r light o n the v a r i e d k i n d s o f ' b a c k i n g ' r e l i e d o n
i n d i f f e r e n t fields o f p r a c t i c e a n d a r g i m i e u t .
It was, i n the event, to my great advautage that 'Tlw Uses of Argument
f o u n d a way so cjuickly i n t o i h e w o r l d o f S p e e c h C o n u i i u n i c a l i o n . T h e
righüy n a m e d ' a n a l y t i c a l ' p h i l o s o p h e r s i n the B r i t a i n a n d A m e r i c a o f Üie
late i()50s ( j u i c k l y s n i e l l e d a n enemy. T h e book was r o u n d l y d a n i i H ; d by
P e l e r S i r a w s o n i n the B . B . G . ' s w e e k l y J o u r n a l , 7'he Listener; a n d for m a n y
years E n g l i s h j j r o f e s s i o n a l p h i l o s o p h e r s i g u o r e d it. P e t e r yMexander, a
coUeague a t L e e d s , c a l l e d i t ' T o u l m i n ' srtn7/-/og-/>book';a n d my Doktorvater
at Cíambridge, R i c h a r d B r a i t h w a i t e , was deeply p a i n e d to see o n e o f bis
o w n students a t t a c k i n g his c o n u n i l m e i u to I n d u c t i v e L o g i c . ( I o n l y f o u n d
this o u t years later.)
Yet the b o o k c o n t i n u e d to sell a b r o a d , a n d the reasons b e c a m e c l e a r
to m e only w h e n I visited the U n i t e d States i n the e a r l y I Q 6 O S . A S a result,
it w o u l d be c h u r l i s h o f m e to d i s o w n the n o t i o n o f ' t h e T o u l m i n m o d e l ' ,
w h i c h was o n e o f the u n f o r e s e e n by-products o f The Uses of Argument,
has kept it i n p r i n i since it first a p p e a r e d i n 1958, a n d justities the
n e w e d i t i o n f o r w h i c h this P t e f a c e is w r i t l e n , m o r e t h a n 4 0 years o n .
 Preface to the Paperback Edition

N o alterations have b e e n m a d e i n the text o f the o r i g i n a l e d i t i o n for the

p u i p o s e s o f the p r e s e n t p r i i n i n g ; but I a m g l a d o f the o p p o r t u n i t y to say
that, five years after the o r i g i n a l p u b l i c a t i o n , I still íeel that the q u e s l i o n s
raised i n the p r e s e n t b o o k are as relevant to the i n a i n themes o f c u r r e n t
B r i t i s h p h i l o s o p h y as they were w h e n the b o o k was first w r i t t e n . T h e re-
c c p t i o n w h i c h the a r g u m e n t o f the book met with f r o m the c ritics i n fat I
s e r v e d o n l y to s h a r p e n f o r m e the point o f my c e n t r a l t h e s i s — n a m e l y ,
the contrast b e t w e e n the standards a n d valúes o f p r a c t i c a l r e a s o i i i n g
( d e v e l o p e d w i t h a n eye t o w h a t I c a l l e d ' s u b s t a n t i a l ' c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ) a n d
the abstract a n d f o r m a l c r i t e r i a r e l i e d o n i n m a t h e m a t i c a l logic a n d n u i c h
oftwentieth-centur)'epistemology. I h e book has i n fact b e e n most w a n n l y
w e l c o m e d by those whose interest i n r e a s o n i n g a n d a r g u m e n t a t i o n has
h a d some sj)ecific ])ractical startiiig-pf)int: students o f j u r i s p r u d e n c e , the
physical sciences, a n d psychology, a m o n g others. W h e l h e r the im|)li( a-
tions o f my a r g i u n e n t for logical theory a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l analysis will
b e c o m e a n y m o r e acceptable w i t h the ¡jassage o f time r e m a i n s to I x ; seen.

• S. T .
Octobei i()6j

xi
 Preface to the First Edition

The i n t e n t i o i i s o f this b o o k are r a d i c a l , b u t the a r g u m e n t s i n it a r e largely

i m o r i g i n a l . I have borrovved m a n y lines o f thought í r o m c o l l e a g u e s a n d
adapted t h e m to m y o w n p m p o s e s : just h o w m a n y w i l l be a p p a r e i U f r o m
the r e f e r e n c e s g i v e n at the e n d . Yet I t h i u k that h i t h e r t o the ]>oint o n
w h i c h these l i n e s o f a r g u m e n t c o n v e r g e has not b e e n p r o p e r l y rect)g-
nised o r stated; for by f o l l o w i n g t h e m out r o n s i s t e n t l y o n e is l e d ( i f I a m
not m i s t a k e n ) to r t j e c t as c o n f u s e d a c o n c e p t i o n o f ' d e d u c t i v e i n f e r e n c e '
w h i c h m a n y recent p h i l o s o j ) h e r s have accepttíd w i t h o u l hesitation as i m -
|M'ccable. T h e o n l y o r i g i n a l i t y i n the b o o k lies i n my attempt to show how
o n e is l e d to that c o n c l u s i ó n . I f the attack o n 'deductive i n f e r e n c e ' fails,
what r e m a i n s is a m i s c e l l a n y o f a|)plications o f o t h e r people's ideas lo
logical topics a n d concepts.
A p a r t f r o m the r e f e r e n c e s to |)ublished w o r k given i n passing o r Usted
at the c i i d o f the book, I a m con.scious o f a g e n e r a l debt to Professor
J o h n W i s d o m : his l e c t i u e s at C a m b r i d g e i n 1946-7 first d r e w m y atten-
tion to the p r o b l e m o f 'trans-type i n f e r e n c e ' , a n d the c e n t r a l thesis o f
my fifth essay was a r g u e d i n far g r e a t e r d e t a l l i n his Cüfford L e c l u r e s at
A b e r d e e n , w h i c h w e r e d e l i v e i e d s o m e seven years ago but a r e still, to
o u r loss, u n p u b l i s h e d . I a m aware also o f p a r t i c u l a r h e l p , d e r i v e d m a i n l y
t h r o u g h ( o n v í i s a t i o n s , f r o m M r P. /Mexandei, Professor K . E . M . Baier,
M r D . ( i . B r o w n , l ) i W . I ) . F a l k , Associate Professor I ) . A . 1. G a s k i n g ,
M r P. I l e r b s t , P r o f e s s o r G i l b e r t R y l e , a n d P r o f e s s o r D . T a y l o r . I n s o m e
cases they have e x p o s t u l a t e d w i t h m e i n v a i n , a n d I a l o n e a m a n s w e i a b l e
f o r the results, but they deserve the credit f o r any good ideas w h i c h I have
h e r c a p p r o j j r i a t e d a n d used.

xiii
xiv Preface to the First Edition

Soiiu- o f t l u ' niatc-nal w o r k e t l i n t o llu-se essays has b e e n pubHshecl

a h e a d y i n o t h e r f o n n s , i n Mind Awá i n the ProceedingiAná SuppUrnentary
Voluntes o f the A r i s t o t e U a n Society. M u c h o f Essay i i has a l r e a d y b e e n Introduction
r e p r i n t e d i n A . G . N . Flew, Essays in Conceptual Analysis ( L o n d o n , 1956).

Stephen Toulmin
Leeds,yM«« Í957

OpcoTov eímTi' irepi TÍ KOÍ TÍVOS éaTÍv f) aKÉyis, ÓTI Trcpi «TTÓSEI^IV K a i
ÉTTiaTTÍiJris inroSeiKTiKTÍs.

Aristotle, Prior Analytics, 2 4 3 1 0

The p u r p o s e o f the.se studies is lo raise p r o b l e m s , not to solve t h e m ; to

d r a w a t t e n t i o n to a f i e l d o f i n q u i r y , r a t h e r t h a n to sui^vey it f u l l y ; a n d lo
p r o v o k e d i s c u s s i o n r a t h e r t h a n to serve as a systematic treatise. T h e y are
i n three seiises 'essays', b e i n g at i h e same time e x p e r i m e n t a l incin-sions
i n t o i h e f i e l d w i t h w h i c h they d e a l ; a.ssays o r e x a m i n a l i o n s o f s p e c i n u u
c o n c e p t s d r a w u r a t h e r a r b i t r a r i l y f r o m a l a r g e r class; a n d finally hallons
d'essai, trial b a l l o o n s d e s i g i i e d to d r a w the f u e o f othei-s. T h i s b c i u g so,
they may s e e i i i a little i n c o u s e q u e n l . S o m e o f the t h e m e s d i s d i s s e d will
r e c i i r , c e r t a i n c e n t r a l d i s t i n c t i o n s w i l l be insisted o n t h r o u g h o u t , a n d for
l i t e r a r y reasons I have a v o i d e d too m a n y e x p r c s s i o n s o f hesitancy a n d
u n c e r l a i n t y , but n o t h i i i g i n what follows p r e t e n d s l o b<> f i n a l , a n d I shall
have fulíilled m y p u r p o s e i f my r e s u l l s a r e f o u n d suggeslive. I f i h e y are
also f o u n d p r o v o k i n g , so m u c h the b e l t e i ; in that case t h e r e is s o m e
h o p e that, out o f the e n s i i i n g d a s h o f o|)iuions, the p r o p e r s o l i u i o n s o f
the problí-ms l i e r e raised will b e c o m e a p p a r c n t .

W h a t is the i i a t u r e o f these p r o b l e m s ? I n a seiise they a r e ZogrcaZ prol)-

l e m s . Y e t it w o u l d p e r h a p s be m i s l e a d i n g l o say that they w e r e p r o l >
l e m s in logic, for the w h o l e t r a d i t i o u o f the subject w o u l d l e a d a l e a d e r
to expect m u c h that he will not l i n d i n these pages. P e r h a p s they h a d
better be d e s c r i b e d as p r o b l e m s about logic; they are p r o b l e m s w h i c h
a l i s e w i l h special f o r c é not w i t h i i i the s c i e n c e o f logic, but o n l y w h e n o n e
w i t h d i a w s o n e s e l l ' f o r a m o m e i i l f r o m the l e c h n i c a l r e h n e m e n t s o f the

1
 liihiidudinn
s 3
subject, and inquires what bearing iht- scit l u c and ils d i s c o v n i c s havc
on anything outside itself—how they apply in practice, and what con-
nections ihey liave with the canons a n d inetliods we use when, in eveiy-
day hfe, we actually assess the soundness, sirengih antl conchisiveness of
argiiments.
Must there be any stirh connertions? Certainiy the man-in-the-sireet
(or the nian-oiU-of-thc-study) expeets the eoneiusions of logicians to
have sonie application to his practice; a n d the first words of the first sys-
lematic treatise o n the sul>ject seeni tojustify his expectation. 'As a start',
says Aristolle, 'we nnist say what lilis inquiry is about a n d to what subject
it beloiigs; naniely, that it is c o n c e r n e d with apodeixis |i.e. tlie way in
which conchisions are to be estabUsbcd] and belongs to tlie science
(epkteriw) of their estabhshnient.' By the Iwentieth centuiy A.D. it niay have
becoiiie possible to cjucstion the coiineclioii, and soine woulcl perhajjs
want to say that 'logical deinonstration' was one thing, a n d the establish-
nient of eoneiusions in the normal r u n of lifc something different.
But when Aristolle nttered the words I have quoted, their attitude
was nol yet possible. For hini, cjueslions about 'ajiodeixis' jiist
were questions about the proving, m a k i n g good or justification—in
an everyday sense—of claims and eoneiusions of a kind that anyone
might have oecasion to make; and even loday, if we stand back for
once from the engiossing piobk^ms of lechuical logic, it may still be
iniportant to raise general, philosophical questions about the practical
assessmeni of arguments. This is the class of questions with which the
prescnt essays are concerned; and it may be surprising lo fnid how
little progress has Ixíeii made in our understaiiding of the answers in all
the centuries since the birth, willi Aristolle, of die science of logic.
Yet siirely, one may ask, these probleiiis are just the ¡jioblems with
which logic ought to be concerned? Are these not the central issues from
which the logician starts, and to which he ought continually to be re-
tuining? About the duties of logicians, what they ought to do or to have
been doing, I have neither the wish ñ o r the riglit to speak. I n fací, as
we shall discover, the science of logic has throughout its histoiy tended
to develop in a diiection leadiiig it away from these issues, away fiom
practical questions about the m a n n e r in which we have oecasion to han-
dle and ciiticise arguments in different fields, and towards a conditit)n
of complete aiitonomy, in which logic becomes a theoretical study on
its own, as free from all immediate practical conceins as is some hranch
of puré madiematics; and even thoiigh at all stages in its liisloiy there
have been people who were preparad to raise again questions about the
liilnxliii i/on
,ippli< alion <>l l()gi( , s()in<' ol ilie c|uesli()iis vital for an understanding of
this ;q)pli( alion iiave s( aiccly been raised.
If ihiiigs have worked oul this way, I shall argüe, diis has been at
Icasi pai lly because of an aiiibilion iiiiplicit in Aiistotle's openiiig words:
naniely, that logic should bccome a formal science—an písteme. T h e pro-
pi iely of lilis ainbition Aiistotle's successors have rarely questioned, bul
wc ( an aíford to do so here; how far logic can hope to be a formal science,
and yet retain the possibility of being applied in the critical assessment of
a< tual arguments, will be a central cpiestion for us. I n this introdiiction I
want to remark only o n two effecis which this |}rogramnie for logic has
liad; fii-st, of distracting atleiition from the probleni of logic's application;
scíondly, of substitutíng for the questions to which that problem would
give rise an alteriiative sel of questions, which are probably insoliible, and
which have certainiy proved incoiiclusive.
How has this come about? I f we take it for graiited that logic can hope
lo Ixí a science, theii the only questioii left for us to settle is, what sort
of science it can hope to be. About this wc h n d at all times a variety of
opinions. T h e r e are those writers for wlioiii the implicit model seems to
be psychology: logic is concerned with the laws of thoiighl—not perhaps
with straightforward generalisations about the ways in which ¡leople are
as a niatter of fact found lo think, since these are very varied and uot all
of them are entided equally to the logician's atteiition a n d r é s p e d . But
just as, for the piiipose of some of his inquines, a physiologist is entitled
lo pul on one side a b n o n n a l , deviaiit bodily piocesses of an exceplioiial
charactei, a n d to label them as 'jialhological', so (it may be suggesled) the
logician is c o n c e r n e d with the study o f proper, rational, n o m i a l thinking
processes, with the working of the intellect i n health, as it were, l a l h e r
than disease, a n d is accordingly entitled to sel aside as inelevant any
aberrant, pathological arguments.
For others, logic is a development of sociology rather than psychol-
ogy: it is not the p h e n o m e n a of the individual h u m a n m i n d with which
the logician is conceriied, but rather the habiis and practices devel-
oped in the ( o u i s e of social evoliition and passed o n by parents a n d
teachei-s from one generadon to aiiodier. Dewey, for inslance, in his book
Logic: the Theory ojKnquiry, explains the character of our logical principies
in die foUowing manner:
Any hábil i.s a way or maiiiicr of action, nol a pailicuiai act or deed. When it i.s
fornuiiated it becomes, as far as it is accepted, a i ule, or moie generally, a pi inciple
or 'iaw' of action. It can hardiy be deiiied that tlieie are habiis of inference and
thai they may be fornuiiated as rules or pi inciples.
 ¡iihdilIII liiiii
Inirnduction 5

Habits of i n f e r e n t c , in o i i i c f words, begin by being nierely cnslomaiy, but

in due course be(oine niandalory o r obligalory. O n c e more the distinc-
tion between palliological and nornial iial>its and practices may need to
be invoked. It is conceivable that u i i s o u n d methods of argiuiient could
retain their h o l d in a society, a n d be passed on down tlie generations,
just as m u c h as a constitutional bodily deficiency or a defect in individual
psychology; so il may be suggested in this case also that die logician is
justified in being seiective i n his stiidies. H e is not siinply a sociologist of
thought; he is rather a sludent of/^ro/«^r iiiferring-habits and of rational
canons of inference.
The need lo qualify each of these llieories by adding words like
'proper' or 'rational' has led some philosopheis to adopt a rather dif-
ferent view. Perhaps, they suggest, the aim of the logician should be to
formúlate not generalisations about tliinkers thinking, but rather niax-
iins reniinding tliinkers how they s h o u l d think. L o g i c , they a r g ü e , is like
medicine—not a science alone, but in addition an art. Its business is not
to discover laws of thought, in any scientilic sens<í of the term 'law', biU
rather laws or m i e s of argument, in the sense of tips for those who wish
to a r g ü e souiidly: it is the arl depenser, llie ars conjectandi, not the scietice de
lapenséem scimtia conjeclionis. F r o m this poiiit of view the implicit model
for logic becomes nol an explanatí)iy s c i e i u e but a technology, and a
textbook of logic becomes as it were a ciaft manual. ' I f yon want to be
rational, here are the recipes to follow.'
At this stage iiiany have l e b e l l e d . ' i f we regard logic as being coii-
c e r n e d with the nature of thinking, this is where we e n d up—eitlier
by making the laws of logic into something psychological a n d subjec-
tive, or by debasing them into m i e s of tliiimb. Rather than accept either
of these eoneiusions, we liad better be prepared to abandon tlu- inilial
assumptioii.' L o g i c , they insist, is a science, and an objective science al
that. Its laws are neither ti[)s ñ o r teiitative generalisations bul established
truths, and its subject iiiatler is not 'thinking' but sometliing else. The
proper ambitioii for logic becomes in their eyes the understanding of
a special class of objects called 'logical lelalions', and its business is to
forninlale the systeni of truths governing relatioiis of this kind. Refer-
euces to ' t h i n k i n g ' musí be sternly put on one side as leadiiig only to
sophistry a n d illusion: the implicit model for logic is iiow to be nei-
ther an explaiiatoiy science ñ o r a technology, but rather p u r é niatlie-
matícs. T h i s view has been both the explicit doctrine of pliiloso¡)liers
siich as C a r i i a p and the practice of niany c o n l e m p o i a i y symbolic logi-
cians, and it leads naUiially enougli to a conception of the nature, scope
,111(1 iiiciliod ol logi( (iiiilc diflercnt from those implied by the other
\( \vs.
riie dispule between these theorieshasinanyfeaturesofaclassic philo-
si>phi(<il dispule, and all the resullant interminabilily. F o r each of the
iln o i i í s has clear attractions, a n d equally undeniable defecLs. I n the first
l>la<i', there is die inilial presumption, acknowledged by Aristolle, llial
!< )gi< is sonieliow c o n c e r n e d with the ways in which iiieii think, argüe
.md infer. Yet to l u r n logic into a b r a i u l i of |)sychology, even into the
I )svchopatliology of cognition, certainiy inakes it too subjective a n d ties it
l o o closely to questions about people's actual /¡«¿/'/.sof inference. ( T h e r e
IS, alter all, no reason wliy mental words should figure al all prominently
I I I books on logic, a n d one can discuss arguments and inferences in terins
I )l propositioiis asserted and facis addiiced in their sup¡)orl, williout hav-
iiig lo refer in any way lo the particular m e n doing the asserting and
.iddiicing.) I n the second place, the sociohjgical a[)¡)roacli has its inerits:
lile logic of siicli a science as [jhysics, for inslance, can hardly be dis-
( iissed williout paying some atlentioii to the structure of the arguments
cmployed by current practitioners of the science, i.e. physicists' cusloni-
ary argument-forms, a n d this gives some plausibilily to Dewey's remarks
iboiit the way in w h i c h customaiy inferences can becoiiie inandatoiy. Yet
.igaiii, it cannot be cuslom alone which gives validity and a u l h o i i l y lo a
lorm of argument, or tlu- logician would have to wait upon the results of
the anüiropologisl's researches.
The counter-view of logic as a technology, and ils principies as the rules
of a ciaíl, has its own altiactions. The methods of compulation wi' learn
at school serve us well as inferring-devices, a n d calcnlations can certainiy
be subjected to logical study and criticism. Again, if one is asked wliy it is
that ihe [irinciples of logic apply to realily, it is a lielp to be? remiiided dial
"il is not so m u c h the woiiil whi( h is logical or illogical as men. Conforniily
to logic is a nieiit in argumentative perfomiances a n d performers, not
a sign of any radical tlocility in the things argiied about, so the queslion
why logic ap¡)lies lo the world does not, as such, arise.' Yet llie idea that
iiiferring is a kind of performance to be executed in accordance with
rules, and that the principies of logic play Uie part of these mies, leads
in lurn to its own paradoxes. O f i e n enough we draw o u r eoneiusions
In an iiislant, willioul any of the intennediate stages essential to a rule-
governed p e r f o m i a n c e — n o taking of the plunge, no keeping of Üie m i e s
in m i n d or scmpulous following of them, no triumphant reaching of the
end of die road or compledon of the inferring [lerformance. Inferring,
in a pirrase, does n o l always involve calculaüng, and ihe canons of soimd
6 Inirotliii lioii
argiinienl < an Ix- applied alike wliedier we have reached our eoneiusions
by way of a compulation or by a sinipk- leaj). F o r logic is c o n c e r n e d not
willi the w r t W H í ' r o f our inferring, or with questions of techuique: its primai"y
business is a retrospective, justiíicatory one—with the arguments we can
p u l forward afterwards to make good o u r claim that the eoneiusions
arrived at are acceptable, Ix-canse justifiable, eoneiusions.
T h i s is where the matheinatical k)gician comes on the scene. F'or, he
can claim, an argmnent is made up of pioposilions, and the logician's
objects of study are the formal relations between proposilions; to ask
whether an argument is valid is to ask whether it is of the righl fonn, and
the study oí f o n n is best inideitaken in a self-consciously malhematical
manner; so we must sweep away all references to thinking and ralionalily
a n d the rest, a n d bring on the i n i e objects of logical study, the formal
relations between tlifferent sorts of |)ropositions.... Biu this is where we
cante i n , aiul the ensuing paradox is already in sight. We can hardly sweep
away references to thinking without logic losing its original pracücal
a])plicalion: if this is the jjrice of making logic matheinatical, we shall be
forced to pose the K;uUian-soiinding problem, 'Is mathematical logií at
all possibl/^'
T h e queslion, 'VVliat sort of a science is logic?', leads us into an imjiasse:
we cannot, accordingly, aíford to get loo involved wilh il al the veiy oulset
of our in(|uiries, but must pul il on one side to be re(onsidered later. For
o m puiposes, íortunately, we can jiisliíiably do so. T h i s queslion is one
about logical //íí'or>',whereas the starting-|)oinlofourstudies will be logical
fmirlice. So leí us begin byalteiiipting toe haracleri.se the chief concepts we
em])loy in logit al practice: when this is done, ihe lime may have come to
leturn a n d ask what a 'iheorelical' logic might be—what sort of a theoi-y
m e n might build up which could have the kind of application reqnired.
A íiiriher precaution will be necessaiy. In lackling o u r main prol)-
iems about the assessment of arguments, it will be worthwliile d e a r i n g
o u r minds of ideas derived from existing logical theoiy, a n d seeing by
direct inspeclion what are the categories in terms of which we actually
exjjiess our assessinenis, a n d what precisely they mean to us. I h i s is the
reason why, in the earlier of these stiidies at any rate, I shall deliberalely
avoid terms like 'logic', 'logical', 'logically necessaiy', 'dednctive' and
'demonsirative'. A l l such temis cariy over from logical theory a load of
assoeiations which could prejudice one main aim of o u r iiupiiiy: to see
h o w — i f at all—the formal analysis of theoretical logic lies up with the
business of ratif)nal criticism. F"or suppose there d i d prove lo have been a
syslemalic diveigence between Üie fundamental notions of logical theory
hiIrndiKtioii
7
.111(1 tlu- (alegolies operative in our p r a c ü c a l assessment of arguments;
w( iiiiglii tlieii have reason lo regret having committed oui-selves by the
use ol iluory-loaded lernis, and íind ourselves led into paradoxes which
we ( o u l d ollierwise have avoided.
O n e lasl preliminaiy: to bieak the power of oíd models a n d aiialo-
gies, we can provide ourselves wilh a new one. Logic is c o n c e r n e d wiüi
tlu- soundness of the claims we make—with the solidity of the grounds
w<- |)rodu(e U) suppori them, the íiiiiiiiess of the backing we |}rovide
lor theiii—or, to change the melaphor, with the sort of case-wc present
¡n d e í e n c e of o u r claims. T h e legal analog)' implied in this las! way of
puttiiig the poiiit can for once be a real liel|). So let us forget about [)sy-
( hology, sociology, technology a n d matliemaücs, ignore the echoes of
stiuclural engineering and rollage'm the words 'grounds' a n d 'backing',
and lake as our model the discipline of juris]jrudence. Logic (we may
say) is geneialised j u i i s p i u d e n c e . Arguments can Iw coiiipared with
law-suits, a n d the claims we make a n d argüe for in extra-legal con-
texts with claims made in the couris, while the cases we present in
making good each kind of claim can be comj)ared widi each other. A
main task of juris|mideiice is lo characlerise the esseiitials of the legal
process: the procedtires by which clainis-at-law are p u l forward, disjjuted
and deteriiiiiied, and tlu- (ategories in terins of which diis is done.
O u r own incpiiiy is a parallel one: we shall aim, in a similar way, lo
characlerise what may be called llie rational process', the procedures
and categories by using which claims-iii-general can be argiied for and
seltled.
Indeed, one may ask, is this really a n aiialogy at all? W h e n we have
seen how far the paralleis between the two studies can be pressed, we
may feel llial the term 'aiialogy' is too weak, and the term 'nieta|)lior'
posilively iiiisleading: even, ihat law-suiis are just a special kind of rational
dis|)ute, for which the procedures a n d rules of argiiinenl have hardeiied
into instilutions. Ck^rtainly it is no surprise to íind a professor of jurisj)i u-
dence laking uj), as problems in his own subject, (piestions familiar to us
from liealises on logic—(luestions, for inslance, aboiil ( ausation—and
for Aristode, as an Atlienian, the gap belweeii arguments in the courls
a n d arguments in llie Lyceuiii or Agora would have seenied even slighter
than it does for us.
T h e r e is one special virtiie in the parallel belween logic a n d j u i i s p r i i -
dence: i l helps lo keep in the centre of the picture the cr/7¿c«/funclion of
the reason. T h e rules of logic may not be tips or generalisations: they none
the less ajiply lo m e n a n d their arguments—not in llie way that laws
8 ¡iilmrliii i/oii
of psychology or inaxiins of iiicthod a])ply, bul rather as standards oj
achievenumt which a m a n , in arguing, can come up to o r fall short of, a n d
by which his arguments can be judged. A sound argument, a well-
grounded or fmnly-backed claim, is one which will stand up to criticism,
one for which a case can be presented c o m i n g up to the standard reqnired
if it is to deserve a favourable verdict. H o w many legal tenns fmd a natural
extensión here! O n e may even be templed to say that oiu- extra-legal
claims have to be justified, not before H e r Majesty's Judges, but before
the Cx)urt of Reason.
In the studies which follow, then, the nature of the rational process will
be discussed with the j m i s p n i d e n t i a l analogy' in m i n d : o u r subject will
be the prudentia, not simply oí jus, but more generally of ratio. T h e first
two essays are i n part preparatory to the third, for it is in Essay i i i that the
crucial results of the inquiiy are e x p o u n d e d . In E.ssay i the chief topic is
the variety of the claims and argumenta we have oecasion to put forward,
a n d the question is discussed, i n what ways the forinalities a n d stnicture of
argtmient change and do not change, as we move from one sort of claim to
another or between arguments in different 'fields': the main iiniovation
here is a distinction between the ' f o r c é ' of terms of logical assessment
and the 'grounds' or 'criteria' for their use, a disfincüon which is taken
up again later. Essay ii is a study of the notion of probability, which serves
here as a pilot investigaüon, introducing us lo a n u m b e r of ideas and
disdncüons which can throw a more general light o n the categories of
rational assessment.
In Essay i i i we reach the ceiUral queslion, how we are to sel oul and
analyse arguments in order that our assessments shall be logically candid—
in order, that is, to make clear the functions of the different propositíons
invoked in the course of an argument a n d the relevance of the different
sorts of criticism which can be directed againsi it. The f o n n of analysis
arrived at is decidedly more complex than that which logicians have ciis-
tomarily employed, and forces o n us a nimiber of distinctions for which
the normal analysis leaves no room; too many different things (I shall
suggest) have been run together in Ihe past u n d e r the naine o f ' n u y o r
premisses', a n d a single división of arguments into 'dednctive' and
'inductive' has been relied on to mark al leasi four differeiU distinctions.
W h e n these various distinctions are separaled o u l , it begins to look as
though fonnal logic has indeed lost l o u c h with its a p p l i c a ü o n , a n d as if
a syslemalic diveigence has in fact grown up belween the categories of
logical practice a n d the analyses giveii of them in logicians' textbooks
and ireaüses.
íiiliodiK lioii 9
I he philosophical origlns ol this divergence and its implications for
li>i;i< and epistemology are the subjecls of the two final essays. I n Essay
i\e origins of the divergence are traced back to the Arislotelian ideal
ol logic as a formal science comparable to geometiy: in the field of j u -
t is|)rudence, the siiggeslion that we should aim to produce llieories hav-
ing the formal structure of m a t h e m a ü c s has never become popular, and
il turiis oul here that there are objections also to the idea of casting the
wliolc of logical theoiy into inadienialical f o n n . Essay v traces some of the
wider consequences of the deviatíon between the categories of working
logi( and the analysis of them given by philosophers and, in particular,
Its clfect on the tlieoiy of knowledge. T h e r e , as in logic, pride of place
has been given to arguments backed by eiitailments: wlierever claims lo
knowledge have been seen to be based o n evidence n o l entailing analyl-
i( ally the correctiiess of the claim, a 'logical g u l f has been felt to exisi
which the pliilosoplier musí find some way either of bridging or of con-
juring away, a n d as a result a whole array of epistemológica! problems
has grown up a r o u n d scienlific, elhical, aesthetic and tlieologieal claims
alike. Onct-, howev(>r, we recogiiise the sources of the deviation between
working logic a n d logical theory, it becomes queslionable wliedier diese
problems should have been raised in Üie first place. We are teiii|jled
lo see deficiencies in these claims only because we conqiare them with
a philosoplier's ideal which is in the nature of the cases unrealisable.
I h e proper task of epistemology would Ije n o l to o v e r e ó m e ihese imag-
iiied deficiencies, but lo íUscover what actual meriis the arguments of
scientists, moralists, art critics or theologians can realistically hope to
acliieve.
T h e existence of this 'doiible standard', this divergence between the
philosoplier's c|uestion about the world and the ordinary nian's, is of
c o u m : a coinmonplace: no one has expressed it better than David I luiiie,
who recognised both habits of m i n d in one and the same person—iiamely,
liimself. Usually, the divergence has been trealed as a m a l l e r for pride,
or at any rale tolerance; as a mark (al best) of superior penetralion and
profuiidity in the thought of ¡)liilosophers, or (al worsi) as the result
of a pardonable psychological quirk. I l seems almost mean of one lo
suggest that it may be, in fact, a consecpience of iiolliiiig more than a
straiglilfoi-ward fallacy—of a failure lo draw in one's logical dieorising all
llie distinctions which ihe demands of logical pracUce require.
T h e studies which follow are, as I have said, only essays. I f o ur anal-
ysis of arguments is to be really effective a n d true-to-life it will need,
veiy likely, to make use of notions a n d dislincüons d i a l are not even
 Iiilwdiirlion

liiiiic'il at liiTc. Uiit ol t>iic tliiiig I aiii coníklenl: ihat by tieating logic as
generalised jiirispniclencc a n d tesüng our ideas against our actual prac-
tice of arginnent-assessnu-nt, rather than against a p h i l o s o p h e r s ideal, I Ficlcls of Argument and Modals
we shall eventually build up a piclure very diflerenl from th<- traditional
one. T h e mosi I < an hope for is that some of the pieces whose shape I
have here o i u l i n e d will keep a place in the finished mosaic.

Steumrd of Cross-Clianiiel Patket: 'Yon raii't be .sick iii here, Sir.' Afjluied
Passenger: 'Can't I?' (As)
Punch

A m a n who makes an assertion puts forward a c l a i m — a claim on our

altention a n d to o u r belief Unlikt' o n e who spi'aks frivolously, jokingly
oronly hyjjothetically (under the rubric 'let us su|)|)ose'), one who jjlays a
part or talks solely for eífect, or one who composes la[)idary inscrij)tions
(in which, as D r johuson remarks, 'a man is not u|)on oath'), a m a n
who asserts something inlends his s t a t e m e i U to be taken seriously: a n d ,
if his statemeni is understood ;is an assertion, it will be so taken. Just how
seriously it will be taken depends, of course, o n many circiiinstances—on
ihe sort of man he is, for inslance, a n d his general credit. T h e words of
some men are trusted siiii])ly on account of their re])ulatioii for cantion,
judgeinent a n d veracity. But this does nol mean thal llie (lueslion of their
riglit to our confidenee cannot arise in the case of all their assertions: only,
ihal we are confident that any claim they make weigluily a n d seriously
will in fact prove to b e well-founded, to have a sound case beliind it, to
deserve—have a righl t o — o u r attention on its inerits.
T h e claim implicit in an assertion is like a claim to a righl or to a litle.
As with a claim to a righl, though it may in the event b e conceded withoul
argiinienl, its meriis depend on the nieiils of llie argunieni which could
be produced in ils siipport. Whatever t h e nature of the particular asser-
tion m a y b e — w l i e l h e r il is a meleorologist ])redicling rain for toniorrow,
an iiijiired workmaii alleging iiegligence on t h e part of his eiiiployer,
a historian defending the character of the E m p e r o r T i b e r i u s , a doctor
 Fiflds of ArgiiriirnI aiid Modnls
tliagiiosiiig measles, a biisiness-man questioning the honesty of a client,
O I aii a n critic e o n i i n e n d i n g the paintings o f Piero della F r a n c e s c a —
i n e a r h c a s e w e c a n c h a l l e n g e t h e a s s e r t i o n , a n d d e n i a n d to h a v e o u r
a t t e n t i o n d r a w n to i h e g i o u n d s ( h a c k i n g , d a t a , f a c i s , e v i d e n c e , c o n s i d e r -
a l i o n s , f e a t i i r e s ) o n w h i c h t h e m e r i t s o f t h e a s s e r t i o n a r e to d e p e n d . W e
c a n , that i s , d e n i a n d a n a r g u n i e n t ; a n d a c l a i n i n e e d b e c o n c e d e d o n l y i f
t h e a r g i n n e n l w h i ( h c a n b e p r o d u c e d i n its s u [ ) p o r l p r o v e s to b e u[) to
standard.
N o w a r g n n i e n t s are p r o d u c e d for a varieiy o f pnrjjoses. Not every
a r g n n i e i u is s e l o i i i i n f o r m a l d e f e n c e o f a n o u t r i g h t a s s e r t i o n . B u l i h i s
p a r t i c u l a r f u u c t i o n ol a i g u m e n t s will d a i m most o f oin- a l l e n t i o n i n the
p r e s e n t essays: w e s l i a l l b e i n t e r e s t e d i n j n s t i f i c a t o i y a r g n n i e n t s b r o n g h l
forward i n s u p p o r i o f a s s e r d o n s , i n the stnictures they m a y be e x p e c t e d
to h a v e , t h c m e r i t s t h e y c a n d a i m a n d t h e ways i n w h i c h w e s e l a b o u l
g r a d i n g , a s s e s s i n g a n d c r i l i c i s i n g d i c m . It c o u l d , I t h i n k , b e a r g u e d ihat
t h i s w a s i n f a c t t h e primary f u n c t í o n o f a r g i u n e n t s , a n d t h a t t h e o t h e r u s e s ,
t h e o t h e r f u n c l i o n s w h i c h a r g u m e n i s h a v e for u s , ai e i n a s e n s e s e c o n d a r y ,
a n d p a r a s i t i c n j i o n this p r i m a i y j u s t i h c a t o i y u s e . B u l it is n o t i m p o r t a i i t for
t h e p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o j u s t i f y d i i s thesis: it is e n o u g l i lliat t h e f u i u t i o u
o f a r g u n i e n t s i n t h e b u s i n e s s o f m a k i i i g g o o d c l a i i n s is a s i g n i f i c a n t a n d
i n t e i e s t i i i g o n e , a n d o n e a b o u t w h i c h it is w o r t l i g e t t i i i g o u r i d e a s c l e a r .
S u p p o s e , t l i e n , Uiat a m a n has n i a d e a n assertion a n d has b e e n clial-
l e n g e d for i i i s b a c k i n g . T h e q u e s t i o n n o w is: h o w d o e s h e set a b o u t p r o -
d u c i n g a n a i g u m e n l i n d e f e n c e o f the original assertion, a n d what are
t h e m o d e s o r c r i l i c i s m a n d a s s e s s m e n t w h i c h a r e a p [ ) r o p r i a l e w h e n we
a r e c o n s i d e i i n g t h e m e r i t s o f t h e a r g u m e i i t h e p r e s e n t s ? I f w e put l l i i s
q u e s t i o n íoi-ward i n a c o m p l e t e l y g e n e r a l f o n n , t h e r e is o n e t h i n g w h i c h
s h o u l d s t r i k e n s i i n m e d i a t e l y : t h e g r e a t r a i i g e o f a s s e i l i o n s for w h i c h
b a c k i n g c a n be p r o d u c e d , i h e i n a n y diffeieiit sorts o f t h i n g w h i c h c a n
b e p r o d u c e d as b a c k i n g f o r a s s e r d o n s , a n d a c c o r d i n g l y t h e v a i i e t y o f i h e
s t e p s f r o i n t h e d a t a lo c o n c l u s i o n s w h i c h m a y a p p e a r i n t h e C O U I M ' o f j n s -
t i f i c a t o i y a i g n m e n l s . T h i s v a i i e t y gives r i s e to t h e n i a i n p r o b l e i n we m u s í
c o n s i d e r i n t h i s lirst essay. I t is t h e p r o b l e m o f d e c i d i i i g at w h a t p o i n i s
a n d i n w i i a l ways t h e i i i a i i n e r i n w h i c h w e asscss a r g i u n e n t s m a y a l s o b e
c x j i e c t e d to v a r y — t h e c|iiestioii w i l l b e , w h a t f e a t u r e s o f o u r a s s e s s n i e n t -
p i o c e d i n e w i l l b e a f f e c t e d as we m o v e f i o m c o n s i d e r i i i g a s t e p o f o n e
k i n d to c o n s i d e r i n g o n c o f a n o t h e r k i n d , a n d w h a t f e a t u r e s w i l l r e m a i i i
the sanie regardless o f the k i n d o f step we are c o n s i d e r i n g .
I x i m e i i i d i c a t e m o r e ¡ j i e c i s e l y h o w t h e p r o b l e m a r i s e s . A few e x a m p l e s
will b r i n g this out. T h e c o n c l u s i o n s we c o m e l o , Üie a s s e i t i o n s we put
I''if'¡d\ Ar^iriiftil mid Modal.s
í b n v a i d , will b e o f v e i y d i f f e r e i i t k i n d s , a c c o r d i n g l o t h e i i a l i i i e oí t h e
p r o b l e m we are p r o n o u n c i n g j n d g e m e n t about: llie question may be,
w h o w i l l b e s e l e c t e d to play i n t h e A m e r i c a n D a v i s C u p t e a m agaiust
A u s t r a l i a , w h e t l i e r C h i p p e n was j u s ü y f o i u i d guilty o l t h e i n u r d e r o f h i s
wife, w h e t h e r t h e p a i n t e r F i e r o d e l l a F V a i i c e s c a fully d e s e r v e s t h e p r a i s c
w h i c h Sir K e i i n e t h C l a r k bestows i i p o n h i m , w h e t h e r Pififessor F i f i h l i c h ' s
i h e o r y o f s i i p e r - c o u d u c t i v i t y is r e a l l y s a t i s f a c l o i y , w h e n t h e n e x t e c l i p s e
o f the i n o o n will take place, o r the exact n a t u r e o f the r e l a t i o n b e t w e c n
the squares o n t h c different sides o f a right-angled Iriaiigle. I n e a c h case
we may v e i i t u r e a n o p i n i ó n , c x p r e s s i i i g ourselves i n favour o f B u d g e
Palty, a g a i u s t ( ; r i p ¡ ) e n ' s c o i i v i c l i o i i , s c e p t i c a l o f S i r K e i i n e t l i (^lark's d a i i n s
o r p r o v i s i o n a l l y p r e p a r e d to a c c e p t F r ó h l i c h ' s t h e o r y , c i t i n g c o n f i d e n t l y
a jjarticular d a l e a n d time for the eclipse, o r staking o u r credit u p o n
Pythagoras' i h e o r e i i i . I n e a c h case, we tliereby p u l ourselves at risk. F o r
w e m a y at o n c e b e a s k e d , ' W h a t h a v e y o n g o l to g o o n ? ' , a n d i f c h a l l e i i g e d
it is i i p to U S to p r o d u c e w h a t e v e r d a t a , facts, o r o t h e r b a c k i n g w e c o n s i d e r
to b e r e l e v a n t a n d s u n i c i e n t to m a k e g o o d t h e i u i t i a l d a i m .
Jiisl w h a l sort of facls we p o i n t to, a n d j i i s l what sort o f a r g u m e i i t
we p r o d u c e , w i l l a g a i n d e p e n d u p o n t h e n a t u r e o l i l i e c a s e : t h e r e c e ñ í
í o i i i i o f t h e l e a d i n g A m e r i c a n t e n n i s ])layers, t h e e v i d e n c e produced
i n c o u i t a l t h e C - r i p p c n trial a n d l l i c c o n d i i c l o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , the
c h a i a c t e i i s t i c f e a l u i e s o f F i e r o s paintings a n d the weight C l a r k places o n
tliem i n his evaliiation o f the painter, the e x p e r i m e n t a l findings about
s u p e r - c o i i d u c l i v i t y a n d t h e d o s e n e s s o f t h e fit b e t w e c n t h e s e lindings
a n d i h e p r e d i c t i o u s oí F i o h l i t l i ' s t h e o i y , t h e p r e s e n t a n d re<ciit p;ust
p o s i t i o n s o f t h e e a i t l i , i n o o i i a n d s n u o r (at s e c o n d h a i i d ) d i e p r i i i t e d
r e c o r d s i n the Nantical A l m a u a c , o r linally, thc axioins o f E u d i d a n d the
d i e o r e m s p r o v e d i n llie e a r l i e r part o f his system I x í b r e the (juestion o f
P y t h a g o r a s ' i h e o r e m is r a i s e d . T h e s t a l e i i i e n t s o f o u r a s s e r t i o n s , a n d t h c
s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e facts a d d u c e d i n Ü i e i r s i q j p o r t , a r e , as p h i l o s o p h e r s
w o i i l d say, o f i n a n y d i f f e r e n i ' l o g i c a l t y p e s ' — r e p o r t s o f ] } r e s e n t a n d [>ast
eveiits, p r e d i c t i o u s about the future, verdicis o f c r i m i n a l guilt, aesthetic
c o m m e n d a l i o n s , g e o m e t r i c a l a x i o m s a n d s o o n . T h e a r g u m e n t s w h i c h we
p u l f o m a r d , a n d the steps w h i c h o c c i i r in t l i e m , will be c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y
v a r i o u s : d c p e n d i n g o n l l i e l o g i c a l types of t h e facts a d d u c e d a n d o f t h e
c o n c l u s i o n s d r a w n f'roin i h e i n , t h e s t e i J s w e t a k e — t h e t i a i i s i t i o n s o f l o g i c a l
type—will be diffenmt. T h e step from reports o f recent tennis-playing
f o n n to a p r e d i c t e d s e l e c t i o n ( o r to t h e s l a t e m c i i t that a p a r t i c u l a r p l a y e r
d e s e r v e s to b e s e l e c t e d ) is o n e t h i n g , t h e s t e p f r o m e v i d e n c e a b o u l c i n e s
i n a m u r d e r c a s e to t h e g i i i l t o f t h e a c c u s e d p a r t y is a n o t h e r , t h a t f r o m
«4 Fields ofAr^inm)! and Modnls
i l i c i i ( liiiic a l I c a i U R ' s o l t h e p i c t u r e s p a i n t e d by a n artist t o t h e m e r i t s
w e a e c o r d h i m is a t h i r d , t h a t f r o m l a b o r a t o r y r e c o r d s a n d a r m c h a i r
c a l c u l a t i o n s to t h e a d e q u a c y o f a { ) a r l i c u l a r s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r y yet a n o t h e r ,
a n d so o n e m i g h t go o n . T h e jnsliíicatory a r g u m e n t s w e p r o d u c e m a y be
o f m a n y different k i n d s , a n d the questíon at o n c e arises, h o w far they c a n
a l l b e a s s e s s e d b y t h e s a m e p r o c e d u r e , i n t h e s a m e sort o f t e r m s a n d b y
a p p e a l to t h e s a m e sort oí s t a n d a r d s .
T h i s is t h e g e n e r a l p r o b l e m w i i h w h i c h w e s h a l l Ixí c o n c e m e d i n t h i s
first essay. H o w f a r c a n j n s t i f i c a t o i y a r g u m e n t s t a k e o n e a n d t h e s a m e
f o r m , o r i n v o l v e a p p e a l to o n e a n d t h e s a m e set o f s t a n d a r d s , i n a l l t h e
d i í f e r e n t k i n d s o f c a s e w h i c h w e h a v e o c c a s i o n to c o n s i d e r ? H o w far, a c -
cordingly, w h e n w e are assessing the merits o f these difTerent a r g u m e n t s ,
c a n w e rely o n t h e s a m e sort o f c a i i o n s o r s t a n d a r d s o f a r g u m e n t s i n
c r i l i c i s i n g i h e n i ? D o t h e y h a v e t h e s a m e sort o f m e r i t s o r diíí'crent o n e s ,
a n d i n w h a l r e s p e c t s a r e w e e n t i t J e d to l o o k f o r o n e a n d t h e s a m e s o r t o f
m e r i t i n a r g u m e n t s o f a l l t h e s e d i f f e r e n t sorts?
F o r i h e s a k e o f brevity, it w i l l b e c o n v e n i e i U l o i u t r o d t i c i " a l e c h u i c a l
t e r m : leí u s a c c o r d i n g l y l a l k o f a //Í-W o f a r g u m e n t s . I'wo a i g u m e n t s will
b e s a i d l o b e l o n g to t h e s a m e field w h e n t h e d a t a a n d c o n c l u s i o n s i n e a c h
o f t h e t w o a r g u m e n t s a r e , r e s p e c t i v e l y , o f t h e s a m e l o g i c a l type: t h e y w i l l
be said l o c o m e f r o m different fields w h e n the backing o r the t o i u l u -
s i o n s i n e a c h o f t h e t w o a r g u m e n t s a r e n o t o f t h c s a m e l o g i c a l type. I h e
p r o o f s i n E u c l i d ' s Elevienls, f o r e x a n q i l e , b e l o n g to o n e í i c l d , t h e c a l c u -
l a t i o n s | ) e r f o r m c d i n p r e p a r i n g a n i s s u e o f t h e Nautiral AIUKUKK hvUm^
to a n o t h e r . T h e a r g m n e n t , ' H a r r y ' s h a i r is n o t b l a c k , s i n c c 1 k i i o w í b r a
f a c t l l i a t it is r e d ' , b e l o n g s to a t J i i r d a n d r a t h e r s p e c i a l íicld—thongli
o n e m i g h t p e i h a p s q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r it really was a n a r g u m e n i at all or,
r a l h e r , a c o i m l e r - a s s e r t i o n . T h e a r g i m i e n t , ' P e t e r s e n is a S w e d e , s o l u -
is p r e s u m a b l y n o t a R o m á n C a t h o l i c " , b e l o n g s to a f o m t h field; the ar-
g i i m e n t , ' T h i s p h e n o m e n o n c a n n o t b e whoUy e x p l a i n e d o n m y theory,
sincc the dcviations bctween your observations a n d m y predictious a r e
s l a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ' , l i e l o n g s to y e l a n o t h e r ; t h e a r g m n e n t , ' T h i s c r e a -
t u r e is a w h a l e , s o it is ( t a x o n o n i i c a l l y ) a m a m m a l ' , b e l o n g s to a s i x t h ; a n d
t h e a r g n m e n t , ' D e f e n d a n t w a s d r i v i n g at 4 5 m . p . h . i n a b u i l t - u p á r e a , s o
he h a s c o m m i l l e d a n oífcnce againsi i h e R o a d Traffic A c l s ' , c o m e s f r o m
a . s e v e n l h f i e l d , d i f i ' e r e n l yet a g a i n . T h e p r o b l e m s to b e d i s c u s s e d i n t h e s e
i n q u i r i e s a r e t h o s e t h a t f a c e u s w h e n w e t i y to c o m e t o t e r m s w i t h t h e
d i f f e i e n e e s b e l w e e n t h e v a i i o u s fields o f a r g m n e n t h e r e i l l u s t i a t e d .
T h e fiist p r o b l e m w e h a v e set o u r s e l v e s c a n b e r e - s l a t e d i n t h e q u e s -
tion, 'What things a b o u l the f o n n a n d merits o f o u r arguments a r e
The Phases of an Argument 15
field-invariant a n d what ihings about t h e m a r e f¡dd-dependen(?' What
t h i n g s a l x ) u t t h e m o d e s i n w h i c h w e assess a r g u m e n t s , t h e s t a n d a r d s b y ref-
e r e n c e to w h i c h w e assess t h e m a n d t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h w e q u a l i f y o u r
c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t t h e m , are the s a m e regardless o f field ( f i e l d - i n v a r i a n t ) ,
a n d w h i c h o f t h e m v a r y a s w e m o v e f r o m a r g u m e n t s i n o n e field to a i -
g u m e n t s i n a n o t h e r ( f i e l d - d e p e n d e n t ) ? H o w far, f o r i n s l a n e e , c a n o n e
conq)arc the standards o f argument relevant i n a eoiirt o f law with
t h o s e r e l e v a n t w h e n j u d g i n g a p a j i e r i n t h e Proceedings of tlw Royal Soriely,
o r t h o s e r e l e v a n t to a m a t h e m a t í c a l p r o o f o r a p r e d i c ü o n a l x j u t t h e ( o m -
position o f a tennis team?
It s h o u l d p e r h a p s b e s a i d at o n c e i h a t i h e q u e s t i o n is n o t , h o w i h e
standards we e m p l o y i n criticising argiunents i n different fields com¡)are
i n stiingency, b u l r a t h e r h o w far i h e r e a r e c o m m o t i s t a n d a r d s applieable
i n i h e e r i t i c i s m o f a r g u m e n t s l a k e n f r o m d i f f e r e n l fields. I n d e c d , w h e t h e r
(|uesnons about comijarative stiingency c a n even b e asked about argu-
m e n t s f r o m d i f f e r e n t fields m a y b e w o r t h q u e s t i o n i n g . W i t h i n a field o f
arguments, questions about com¡)arative striiigeney a n d looseness m a y
cerlainly arise: w e may, for instance, com¡)are the standards o f rigour
r e c o g n i s e d by p u r é m a t h e m a t i c i a n s a t different stages i n t h e h i s l o i y o f
t h e s n b j e c t , b y N e w t o n , E u l e r , G a u s s o r Weiei-strass. H o w far, o n t h e o t h e r
h a i i d , it n i a k e s s e n s e to c o n q j a r e l l i e i n a t h e m a t i c a l r i g o u r o f ( l a u s s 01
W c i c r s i r a s s w i t h t h e j u d i c i a l r i g o u r o f L o r d ( ^ h i e f J u s t i c e ( l o d d a r d is a n -
other matter, a n d o n e whose c o n s i d e r a t i o n we must postpone.
T h e Phases o f a n Argument
Wliat features o f o u r a r g u m e n t s s h o u l d we e x p e c t to be field-invariant:
w h i c h features will b e field-<le|)endent? W e c a n get s o m c h i n t s , i f w e c o n -
s i d e r l l i e p a r a l l e l b e l w e e n t h e j u d i d a l p r o c e s s , by w h i c h t h e ( l u c s t i o n s
raised i n a law c o i i r l a r e setüed, a n d t h e rational process, by w h i c h argu-
m e n t s a r e set o u t a n d j ) r o d i i c e d i n s u p { ) o r t o f a n i n i t i a l a s s e r t i o n . F o r i n
t h e law, t o o , t h e r e a r e c a s e s o f m a n y d i f f e r e n t s o r t s , a n d t h c ( p i c s i i o n c a n
Ije r a i s e d a s l o h o w f a r e i t h e r t h e f o r i n a l i n e s o f t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s o r
the c a n o n s o f legal a r g u m e n t are t h e s a m e i n cases o f all sorts. T h e r e a r e
c r i m i n a l cases, i n w h i c h a m a n stands c h a r g e d with s o m e offence e i l h e r
agaiust c o i n m o n l a w o r agaiust a slatute; civil cases, i n w h i c h o n e m a n
claiins from a n o t h e r dainages o n a c c o n n t o f a n injury, libel o r s o m e sim-
ilar c a u s e ; t h e r e a r e cases i n w h i c h a m a n asks for a d e d a r a t i o n o f h i s
righls o r status, o f h i s l e g i t i i n a c y ( s a y ) o r h i s t i l l e l o a p e e r a g e ; c a s e s
i n w h i c h o n e m a n a s k s Ü i e c o u r t f o r a n i n j u n c t i o n to r e s t i a i n a n o t h e r
V
 Fields oj Argument and Modnls
I r o n i ( l o i i i g s o m e t h i i i g l i k e l y to i n j i i r e h i s i n t e r e s t s . C r i m i n a l c h a r g e s , c ivil
suits, r c q u c s t s í o r d e d a r a t i o n s o r i n j u n c t i o i i s : d e a r l y t h e ways i n w h i c h
w e set a b o u t a r g u i n g f o r l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s , i n t h e s e o r o t h e r c o n t e x i s ,
will I x ; s o m e w h a l v a i i a b l e . S o it c a n b e a s k e d a b o i U l a w - t a s e s , as a b o i U
a r g u m e n t s i n g e n e r a l , h o w f a r t h e i r f o n n a n d tJic c a n o n s r e l e v a n t f o r
t h e i r crilií i s m a r e i n v a i i a i u — t h c s a m e f o r c a s e s o f a l l t y j x s — a n d h o w f a r
t h e y a r e d e p e n d e m u p o n i h e type o f c a s e u n d e r c o n s i d e i a t i o n .
O n e b r o a d d i s t i n c l i o n is fairly c l e a r . T h e s o r t s o f e v i d e n c e r e l e v a n t i n
cases o f different k i n d s will n a n u a l l y be very variable. T o establish negli-
g e n c e i n a civil case, wilful intent i n a case o f i i u i r d e r , t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f
l e g i t i m a t e b i r l h : e a c h oí lhe.se w i l l r e q u i r e a p p e a l to e v i d e n c e o f t l i í f i i -
ent kinds. O n the o t h e r h a n d there will, within limits, be certain b r o a d
s i m i l a r i t i c s b e l w e e n i h e o r d e r s o f p r o c e e d i n g s a d o p l e d i n t h c a c t u a l trial
of diíferenl ca.ses, e v e n w h e n t h e s e a r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h i s s u e s o f v e r y
d i f f e r e i u k i n d s . C e r t a i n b r o a d p h a s e s c a n Ix" r e c o g n i s e d as c o m m o n l o
Üie p r o c e d u i c s í b r d e a l i n g w i d i m a n y s o r t s o f l a w - c a s e — c i v i l , c r i m i n a l
o r whatever. T h e r e n u i s i b e a n i n i t i a l stage at w h i c h i h e c h a r g e o r d a i m
is d e a r l y s l a t c d , a s u b s e q u e n t p h a s e i n w h i c h e v i d e n c e is set o u t o r l e s -
ü m o n y g i v e n i n s i q j p o r t o í i h e c h a r g e o r c l a i m , l e a d i n g t)n l o t h e final
s l a g c at w h i c h a v e r d i c t is g i v e n , a n d t h e s c n l e n c e o r o d i c r j u d i c i a l act
i s s u i n g í r o i n t h c v e r d i c t is p r o n o i u i c e d . T h e r e m a y b e v a r i a t i o n s o f d e t a l l
w i t h i n this g e n e r a l p a t t e r n , b i u t h e o i u l i n c will b e t h e s a m e i n m o s i t y | x s
o f c a s e . C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , t h e r e w i l l Ix- c e r t a i n c o m m o n r e s p e c t s i n w h i d i
w e c a n assess o r ( r i l i c i s e t h e c o n d u c t , at a n y r a l e , o f l a w - c a s e s o f m a n y
d i l f c r c i u k i n d s . F o r i n s t a n c e , to take a n e x t r e m e p o s s i b i l i t y , a n y c a s e i n
w h i c h s e n t e n c e w a s p r o n o u n c e d b e f o r e t h e v e r d i c t h a d l>een b r o n g h l i n
w o u l d b e o [ ) e n to o b j e c l i o n s i m ] ) l y o n p R x e d u r a l g r o u n d s .
W h e n w e t u r n í r o i n t h e j u d i c i a l to t h c l a l i o n a l p r o c e s s , i h e s a m e b r o a d
dislinction c a n be drawn. C e i lain basic siniilaiilies o f pattern a n d jiro-
c e d u r e c a n be r e c o g n i s e d , not o n l y a m o i i g legal a r g i u n e n t s but a i n o n g
j u s l i f i c a t o r y a r g u m e n t s i n g e n e r a l , h o w e v e r w i d e l y d i f i e r e n t i h e fields o f
t h e a r g u m e n t s , t h e sorts oí e v i d e n c e r e l e v a n t , a n d t h e w e i g h t o í t h e evi-
d e n c e m a y b e . F a y i n g a t t e n t i o n to t h e n a t u r a l o r d e r i n w h i c h w e set o u l
I h e j u s i i í i c a t i o n o f a c o n c l u s i ó n , w e find a n u m b e r o f d i s f i n c t p h a s e s . i b
stari w i t h w e h a v e to p r e s e n ! t h e p r o b l e m : t h i s c a n b e d o n e at b e s i by ;isk-
i n g a c l e a i q u e s t i o n , b u t v e r y oí t e n b y i u d i c a l i n g o n l y t h e n a t u r e o f o u e ' s
c o n f u s e d s e a r c h for a q u e s ü o n . ' W h e n will the n e x t eclipse o f the m o o n
t a k e p l a c e ? W h o will play i n t h c d o u b l e s i u t h e A m e r i c a n t e a m fot t h e
n e x l D a v i s C^up m a t c h ? W e r e t h e r e s u f f i c i e u t g i o u n d s i n l a w f o r c o n d e m i i -
i n g C r i p p e n ? ' h i these cases, w e c a n f o r m ú l a l e c l e a r e n o u g h ciiiestions.
The ¡'liases ofan Argumml 17
A l l w e m a y b e a b l e to d o , h o w e v e r , is t o iisk, less c o h e r e n t l y , ' W h a t a r e
w c to t h i n k o f S i r K c n n e t l i CUark's r e a s s e s s m e n t o f F i e r o ? ' o r , ' H o w a r e
we to m a k e s e n s e o f t h e p h e n o m e n o n o f e l e c t r i c a l s u p e r - c o n d u c t i v i t y a t
extieinely low l e m i x ' i a l u i e s ? '
Suppose, now, we have a n opinión about o n e o f these p r o b l e m s , a n d
that w e w i s l i to s h o w its j u s l i c e . T h e c a s e w h i c h w e a d v a n c e i n d e f e n c e o f
o u r p a r t i c u l a r solutioii c a n i i o r m a l l y be p r e s e n t e d i n a series o f slages.
T h e s e , i t m u s t b e r e m e m b e r e d , d o n o t n e c e s s a r i l y c o r r e s p o n d t o stages
i n t h e p r o c e s s by w h i c h w e a c t u a l l y r e a c h e d t h e c o n c l u s i ó n w e a r e n o w
t r y i n g t o j u s t i f y . W e a r e n o t i n g e n e r a l c o i i c e r i i e d i n l l i e s e essays w i t h
the ways i n w h i c h w e i n fact g e l to o u r c o n c h i s i o n s , o r w i t h m e t h o d s o í
i m p r o v i n g o u r e f f i c i e n c y as c o n c l u s i o n - g e t t e i ^ . I t m a y w e l l he, w h c i e a
p r o b l e m is a i i i a l l e r f o r c a l c n l a t i o n , t l i a l t h e stages i n t h e a r g u m e n t w e
p r e s e n t i n j u s t i f i c a t i o u o f o u r c o n c l u s i ó n a r e i h e s a m e as t h o s e w e w e n t
t h r o u g h i n g e t t i n g at t h e a n s w e r , b u t t h i s w i l l n o t i n g e n e r a l b e s o . I n this
essay, at a n y r a l e , o u r c o n c e r n is n o t w i t h t h e g e t t i n g o f c o u d u s i o n s b u t
w i t h t h e i r s u b s e e j u e n t e s t a b l i s h m e n l by t h e p r o d u c t i o i i o f a s i q j p o r t i n g
a r g u m e n t ; a n d o u r i m i n e d i a l e task is l o c h a r a c t e r i s e i h e s t a g e s i n t o w h i c h
a j u s t i f i c a t o r y a r g u m e n t n a t u r a l l y falls, i n o r d e r to s e e h o w f a r t h e s e s t a g e s
c a n Ix" f o u n d a l i k e i n t h e c a s e o f a r g u m e n t s t a k e n f r o m m a n y d i f F e r e n t
fields.
I n c h a r a c t e r i s i n g t h e s e s l a g e s , i l w i l l Ixí c o n v e n i e n i to c o n n e c l t h e m
u|) w i t h t h e u s e s o f c e r t a i n i i i i p o r l a n i t e r m s , w h i c h h a v e a l w a y s b e e n o f
i n t e r e s t l o p h i l o s o | ) h e r s a n d h a v e c o m e to b e k i u ) w n as m o d a l l e r m s : t h e
p r e s e n t e.s.say w i l l c o n s i s i l a r g e l y o f a s t u d y o f t h e i r p i a c t i c a l u s e s . T h e s e
t e n n s — ' p o s s i b l e ' , ' n e c e s s a r y ' a n d t h e l i k e — a r e best u n d e r s t o o d , I shall
a r g ü e , by e x a m i n i u g t h e fiinclions t h e y h a v e w h e n w e c o m e to set o u l
o u r a i g u m e n l s . To m e i i l i o i i t h c first s t a g e first: i n d e a l i n g w i t h a n y sort
{)f p r o b l e m , t h e r e w i l l b e a n i n i ü a l s t a g e a t w h i c h w e h a v e t o a d m i t that a
n u m b e r o f d i f f e r e n t s u g g e s l i o n s a r e e n t i d e d to b e c o n s i d e r e d . T h e y m u s t
a l l , at this first s t a g e , b e a d m i t l e d as c a n d i d a t e s f o r t h e l i t l e o f ' s o l i i t i o n ' ,
a i u l l o m a r k this w e say o f e a c h o f t h e m , ' I t m a y ( o r m i g h t ) b e l l i c c a s e
that ' A t I b i s s t a g e , t h e t e r m ' p o s s i b i l i t y ' is p r o p e r l y a l h o m e , a l o n g
w i t h its a s s o c i a t e d vi-rbs, a d j e c t i v c a n d a d v e r b : to s p c a k o f a | ) a r l i c u l a r
s u g g e s l i o n as a possibility is to c o n c e d e that it h a s a r i g h l l o b e c o u - s i d e r e d .
E v e n at t h i s e a r l y s l a g e , d i f f e r e n t s u g g e s t i o i i s m a y h a v e s ü o n g e r o r
w e a k e r c l a i m s 011 o u r a t t e n t i o n : p o s s i b i l i t i e s , as w e say, a r e m o r e o r less
serious. S t i l l , to r e g a r d s o m e t h i i i g as b e i n g a p o s s i b i l i t y a l a l l is, a i n o u g
o t h e r t h i n g s , to b e p r e | ) a i e d to s p e i i d some t i m e o n t h e e v i d e n c e o r
b a c k i n g b e a r i n g f o r it o r a g a i u s t it; a n d t h e m o r e .serious o n e regareis
IH ¡•icitis ofÁr/riiment nnd Modals
a |)<)ssil}ility a s b e i n g t h e m o r e t i m e a n d t h o u g h t w i l l n e e d to b e d e v o t e d
to t h e s e c o n s i d e r a ü o n s — i n t h e c a s e o f t h e m o r e r e m o t e p o s s i b i l i t i e s , less
w i l l s i i i r i c e . T h e first s t a g e a f i e r t h e s t a t i n g o f t h e p r o b l e m w i l l b e c o n -
c e r i i e d , i h e r e f o r e , with setting out the possible solutions, the suggestioiis
d e m a n d i n g o u r a t t e n t i o n , 01 a t a n y r a l e t h e s e r i o u s p o s s i b i l i t i e s , w h i c h
d e n i a n d o u r attention most iirgently.
O n e t h i n g h a d b e l l e r b e s a i d s l r a i g l i t away. I n c o i i i i e c l i n g u i ) t h e w o r d s
' p o s s i b l e ' , ' p o s s i b l y ' , ' m a y ' a n d ' i n i g h l ' w i t h this i n i t i a l s t a g e i n t h e p r e s e i i -
t a l i o n o f a n a r g u m e n t , I d o n o t s e e m y s e l f as p r e s e n l i n g a f o n n a l a n a l y s i s
o f t h e t e r m ' j i o s s i b l e ' . T h e w o r d is, I i m a g i n e , o n e o f a sort f o r w h i c h it
w o u l d b e (liíficult l o give a n y s t r i c t d i c ü o u a r y e e j i i i v a l e n t , c e r l a i n l y i n t h e
t e r m s i n w h i c h I a m n o w t r y i n g t o e l n c i d a t e it. B u t t h e r e is n o n e e d t o
gf) s o f a r a s t o say l l i a t , a s a m a t t e r o f d e f i n i t i o n , t h e s t a t e m e i i l " I b i s is
a |)ossible s o l u l i o i i o f o u r p r o b l e m ' m e a i i s the s a m e as " I h i s soliitiou o f
o u r p r o b l e m m u s t Ix' c o n s i d e r e d ' . N o formal e q u i v a l e n c e n e e d be aiiiied
at, a n d t h e r e is p r o b a b l y n o p l a c e h e r e f o r a f o n n a l d e f i n i t i o n : y e t t h e
p l i i l o s o j ) h i c a l p o i n l i i i v o l v e d c a n n e v e r l l i e l e s s b e s t a t e d fairly c o g e n l l y .
S u [ ) p o s e , í o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t a m a n is r e q u i r e d to d e f e i i d s o m e c l a i m
h e h a s m a d e ; t h a t a c o u n t e r - s u g g e s t i o n is m a d e t o h i m , a n d h e r e p l i e s ,
' T h a t is n o t p o s s i b l e ' ; a n d yet that h e p r o c e c d s 011 t h e s i x ) l t o p a y d o s c
a t l e i i t i o i i t o i b i s v e r y s u g g e s l i o n — a n d dix^s s o , n o t at a l l i n a n u i i í u l f i l l e d -
c o n d i t i o n a l u i a n n e r ( c o v e r i n g h i n i s e l f b y t h e d a n s e ' I f that h a d b e e n
¡xjssible, i h e i i . . . ' ) , but with t h e a i r o f o n e w h o regards the suggeslion
as c n l i l l e d t o h i s r c s p e c t f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I f h e b e h a v e s i n s u c h a m a n -
n e r , d o e s h e n o t t h e r e b y l a y h i m s e l í o p e n l o a c h a r g e oí i i i c o n s i s t e n c y ,
o r | X ' r h a i ) s o f frivolity? H e says t h a t t h i s .siiggestion is n o t p o s s i b l e , y e t h e
treals it a s p o s s i b l e . I n i h e s a m e way, i f w h e n a p a r t i c u l a r s u g g e s l i o n c o m e s
u p h e says, " I h a l is |K>ssible' o r ' T h a t m i g h t b e t h e c a s e ' , a n d y e l (Ux-s
i u ) t t h e r e u p o n p a y a n y a t l e i U i o n w h a t e v e r to i h e s u g g e s t i o u , a s i m i l a r
s i l u a t i o n arises: o n c e a g a i n h e m u s t b e ready to d e f e n d h i m s e l f agaiust
a ( h a r g e o f incoiisistency. T h e r e will, o f c o u r s e , i n suitable cases be a
p e r í e c l l y g<X)d d e f e n c e . I l e may, f o r i n s t a n c e , h a v e r e a s o n to believe i l i a l
this p a r t i c u l a r s u g g e s l i o n is o n e o f t h e m o r e r e m o t e possibilities, w h i c h
t h e r e will b e l i m e e n o u g h to c o n s i d e r after w e h a v e f o u n d g r o u n d s f o r
d i s i i i i s s i n g t h o s e w h i c h at p r e s e n t a p p e a r m o r e s e r i o u s . B u l , b y a l l o w -
i i i g i h a l a p a n i c i i l a r s u g g e s l i o n is ' p o s s i b l e ' o r ' a p o s s i b i l i t y ' , h e a l a n y
r a t e a l l o w s it a c l a i m o n h i s a t t e n t i o n i n d u e c o u r s e : t o c a l i s o m e t h i n g
' p o s s i b l e ' a n d t l i e i i to i g n o r e i l i n d e f i n i l e l y w i l l i o u t g o o d r e a s o n is i n c o n -
s i s l e n l . I n i b i s way, Ü i o u g h w e m a y n o t b e i n a p o s i t i o i i t o g i v e a s l r i c t
d i c t i o n a i y definitíon o f the words 'possible' a n d 'possibility' i n terms o f
'l'lic l'hti\fs ofan Argument 19
argiiing-¡)i(Medures, a d o s e c o i i i i e c t i o n c a n a l l i h e s a m e b e r e c o g n i s e d
b c t w e e n t h e two t h i n g s . I n t h i s ca,se, a l a n y r a l e , w e c a n b e g i i i e l n c i d a l i n g
t h c i i i c a n i n g o f a family o f n u x l a l l e r m s by p o i n t i i i g o u t t h e i r [ilacc i n
juslificatory arguments.
S o m u c h f o r t h e initial p h a s e . O n c e w e b e g i i i to c o n s i d e r those sugges-
t i o i i s w h i c h h a v e b e e n a c k n o w l e d g e d t o desei-ve o u r a t l e n l i o i i , a n d a s k
w h a t is l l i e b e a r i n g 011 d i e s e s u g g e s t i o i i s o f a n y ¡ n í b r m a l i o n w e h a v e i n
o u r possession, a n u m b e r o f things may liappen. I n e a c h o f the resulüng
siliialions f u r l h e r m o d a l t e n n s c o m e i n l o llie c e n t r e o f the picture.
T h e r e a r e , f o r i n s t a n c e , o c c a s i o u s w h e n l l i c c l a i i n s o f o n e o f the c a n d i -
dates are i m i q u e l y go(xl. F r o m all the possibles with w h i c h w e b e g a u , w e
find o u r s e l v e s e n t i t l e d t o p r e s e n t o n e p a r ü c i i l a r c o n c l u s i ó n a s u n e q u i v o -
cally the o n e l o accept. W e n e e d not c o n c e r n ourselves í o r the i n o m e n t
w i t h U l e q u e s t i o n w h a l sort o f tesis h a v e l o Ix- s a t i s f i e d í b r u s to l e a c h
t h i s l i a | ) p y s l a t e . W e a r e f a m i l i a r e n o u g h w i t h its h a p p e n i n g , a n d t h a t i s
e n o u g h to b e g o i n g o n with: t h e r e is o n e p e r s o n w h o s e c u r r e n l f o n n
d e m a n d s h i s inclusión i n a tennis t e a m , the e v i d e n c e leaves n o d o u b t
that t h e m a n i n t h e d o c k c o i i i m i t t e d t h e c r i i n e , a w a t e r t i g h l p r ( X ) f o f a
t l i e o r e i i i is c o n s t n i c t e d , a s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r y p a s s e s a l l o u r tests w i t h f l y i i i g
colours.
I n s o m e fields o f d i s p u l e , n o d o u b l , d i i s l i a p p e n s r a r e l y , a n d it is 110-
l o r i o u s l y d i n i c u l t to establish t h e p r e - e n i i n e n t c l a i i n s o f o n e parücnlar
c a n d i d a t e alx>ve a l l o t h e r s : i n t h e s e fields, m o r e o f t e n i h a n i n m o s t , t h e
a n s w e r s t o c p i e s l i o n s r e m a i i i m a l l e i s o f o ] ) i n i o i i o r t a s l e . A e s t h e t i t s is
a n o h v i o u s í i c l d i n w h i c h i b i s is H a b l e to h a p p i - n , t l i o i i g h e v e n there
it is e a s y t o e x a g g e r a t e t h e r o o m í o r r e a s o n a b l e ( h s a g r e e i n e i i t , a n d to
overlook the cases in w h i c h only o n e i n l b n i i e d opinión c a n seiiously
be m a i n t a i n e d — e . g . t h e s u p e i i o r i t y as a l a n d s c a p e p a i n l e r o f G l a n d e
L o r r a i n e over I l i e r o n y n i u s B o s c h . A t any rate, w h e n we d o for o n c e íind
ourselves i n a s i l u a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n at o u r disposal jxjints
uiieqiiivocally l o o n e particular s o h u i o i i , we have o u r c h a r a c l e r i s l i c terms
w i t h w h i c h l o m a r k it. W e say that t h c c o n c l u s i ó n ' m u s t ' b e t h e c a s e , t h a t
it is n e c e s s a r i l y ' s o — a 'iiece,ssity' o f t h e a p p r o p r i a l e s o r t . ' U n d e r t h e c i r -
c u i i i s i a i i c e s ' , w e say, ' t h e r e is o n l y o n e d e c i s i ó n o p e n l o u s ; i h e c h i l d mmt
b e l e l u i n e d l o t h e c u s t o d y o f its p a r e u l s . ' O r a l t e i n a t i v e l y , ' I n v i e w o f
the p r e c e d i n g stejjs i n the a r g u m e n t , the s q u a r e o n the h y p o t e i i u s e o f a
r i g h t - a n g l e d t r i a n g l e tnmthe e q u a l t o t h e s u n i o f t h e s q u a r e s o n Üie o t h e r
two s i d e s . ' O r a g a i n , ' C o n s i d e r i n g t h e d i m e i i s i o i i s o f t h e s i i n , m o o n a n d
e a r t l i a n d t h e i r r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s a l l l i e t i m e c o i u c r n e d , w e s e e that t h e
m o o n musthe c o m p l e t e l y o b s c u r e d a t t h a t m o m e n l . ' ( O n c e a g a i n , t h e r e
éo Fii'lds oj Argiunent and Modals
is u o ( | U ( ' s t i o i i h e r e o f g i v i n g d i c ü o u a r y d e í i n i t i o u s o f t h e w o r d s ' m u s t ' ,
'uecessarily', a u d 'necessity'. The c o u n e c t i o n Ijetween the m e a n i n g o f
t h e s e w o r d s a n d t h e s o r t o f s i t u a t i o n I h a v e i n d i c a t e d is i n t i m a t e , b i U u o l
o f a s o r t w l ñ c h c o u l d b e a d e q u a t e l y e x p r e s s e d i n Üie f o r m o f a d i c ü o u a r y
definition.)
N e e d l e s s to say, w e a r e n o l a l w a y s a b l e to b i i n g o u r a r g u m e n t s to t h i s
happy t e r m i n a t i o n . After taking iiUo acconnt everything o f whose rele-
v a n t e w e a r e a w a r t ; , w e m a y s t i l l n o t find a n y o n e c o n c l u s i ó n i m e q u i v o c a l l y
p o i n t e d to as t h e o n e to a c c e p t . H o w e v e r , a n u m b e r o f o t h e r t h i n g s m a y
h a p p e u . W e m a y at a n y rate b e a b l e to d i s m i s s c e r t a i n o f t h e s u g g e s t i o n s
i n i ü a l l y a d n ü l l e d to t h e r a n k s o f ' p o s s i b i l i t i e s ' as b e i n g , i n t h e l ig h t o f o u r
o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n , n o l o n g e r d e s e r v i n g o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n : 'After a l l , ' we
say, 'it cannolhv t h e c a s e that s u c h - a n d - s u c h . ' Onc o f the o r i g i n a l sugges-
t i o n s , that is, m a y t i n n o u t a f t e r a l l to b e i n a d m i s s i b l e . I n s u c h a s i l u a t i o n
f u r t h e r m o d a l t e r m s find a n a t u r a l u s t — ' c a m i o t ' , ' i m p o s s i b l e ' , a n d t h e
l i k e — a n d to t h e s e w e s h a l l p a y s p e c i a l a t t e u ü o n shorüy.
Sometimes, again, h a v i n g s t r u c k o u l from oiulist of'possible' solutions
t h o s e w h i c h o u r i n f o r m a ü o n e u t i t l e s u s to d i s m i s s e n ü r e l y a n t l f i u d i n g
o i n s e l v e s left w i t h a n u m b e r o f o t h e r , i m d i s m i s s i b l e p o s s i b i l i t i e s o n o u r
h a n d s , w e m a y n e v e r t h e l e s s b e a b l e to g r a d e d i e s e s u r v i v o r s i n o r d e r oí
c o m p a r a t i v e I r u s l w o r t h i n e s s o r c r e d i b i l i l y — l i a v i n g r e g a r d to o u r i n f o r -
m a t i o n . T h o u g h we m a y n o t b e j u s ü f i e d i n p r e s e n ü n g a n y o n e suggeslion
as b e i n g u n i c j i i e l y a c c e p t a b l e , s o m e o f t h e s u r v i v o r s m a y , i n t h e l i g h t o f
o u r d a t a , b e m o r e d e s e r v i n g t h a n o t h e r s . S t a r l i n g f r o m w h a t we k n o w ,
w e m a y a c c o r d i n g l y b e e n t i t l e d l o t a k e t h e s t e p to o n e o f l l i e c o n c l u s i o n s
w i t h m o r e c o n í i d e n c e t h a n t h e s t e p to o t h e r s : t h i s c o n c l u s i ó n , w e say, is
m o r e ' ¡ i r o b a b l e ' t h a n t h e o t h e r s . T h i s is o n l y a l i i i i t : t h e w l i o l e s n b j e c t o f
p r o b a b i l i l y is a c o n i p l i c a t c d o n e , to w h i c h a l a t e r essay w i l l be d e v o t e d .
T h e r e is o n e last type o f s i t u a ü o n w h i c h is w o r t h m e n t i o n i n g at t h e
outset: stiinetiines we are able l o s h o w that o n e p a r t i c u l a r a n s w e r w o u l d
b e í/íí" a n s w e r , s u p p o s i i i g o n l y w e w e r e c o n f i d e n t l l i a t c e r t a i n u n i i s u a l o i
e x c e | ) ü o n a l c o n d i t i o n s d i d n o l a p p l y i n this p a r ü c n l a r case. I n the a b s e n c e
o f a d e f i n i t e a s s u r a n c e o f t h i s , w e m u s t q u a l i f y o u r c o n c l u s i ó n . A m a n is
euütled lo a declaration o f legiümacy i n the absence o f posilive evidence
o f illegitiinacy; o n e c a n s u p p o s e that the r e g u l a r c h a i n n a n took the c l i a i r
a l a m e e l i n g o f a c o m m i l l e e , u n l e s s t h e r e is s o m e r e c o r d l o t h e c o n l i a i y
i n t h e m i n u t e s ; o n l y a few e x c e p ü o n a l b o d i e s , s u c h a s b a l l o o n s filled w i t h
h y d r o g e n gas, r i s e i i i s t e a d o f f a l l i u g w h e n r e l e a s e d a b o v e t h e ground.
H e r e too we h a v e a c l i a r a c t e r i s t i c way o f m a r k i n g the s p e c i a l forcé o f o u r
c o n c l u s i o n s : w e s p e a k o f a m a n ' s l e g i t i i n a c y as a ' p r e s u m p t i o n ' , w e say
Impossd)iUties and Improprieties
lliat t h e r e g u l a r c h a i r m a n was ' p r e s u m a b l y ' i n t h e c l i a i r at i h a t m e e t i u g ,
o r iiifer f r o m the i n f o r m a t i o n that a body was r e l e a s e d f r o m a heiglit ihat
it c a n b e ' p r e s u m e d ' to h a v e f a l l e n to t h e g r o u n d .
I n a l l t h i s , o n e t h i n g s h o u l d b e n o l e d : i n c h a r a c t e r i s i n g t h e d i f f e r e n t sit-
uations w h i c h may arise i n die setting-oul o f ajusüficatory a r g u m e n t , o n e
( a n rely o n fiuding e x a m p l e s i n m a n y d i f f e r e n l s o r t s o f field. T h e v a r i o u s
phases—first, o f setüng out the caiididate-soluüoiis requiring consider-
ation; then, o f fiuding one parücnlar soluüon uneqiiivocally indicated
by the e v i d e n c e , n i l i n g o u t s o m e o f the iniüal possibiliües i n the light
o f the e v i d e n c e , a n d the r e s i — m a y be e n c o u n t e i e d equally w h e t h e r o u r
a r g u m e n t is c o i i c e r n e d w i t h a q u e s t i o n o f p h y s i c s o r m a l l i e m a ü c s , c t l i i c s
o r law, o r a n e v e i y d a y m a t t e r o f fact. I n e x t r a - j u d i c i a l as w e l l as i n j u d i c i a l
a r g u m e n t s , these basic similarities o f p r o c e d u r e h o l d g o o d througliout a
w i d e r a n g e o f fields; a n d , i n s o far as t h e f o r m o f t h e a r g u m e n t w e p r e s e n t
r e f l e c t s i h e s e s i m i l a r i t i e s o f p r o c e d u r e , t h e f o r m o f a r g u m e n t i n diíTerent
fields will be s i m i l a r also.
Impos.sibil¡ües a n d I i n p r o p r i e ü e s
W e c a n n o w g e t a litüe c l o s e r to s o l v i n g o u r f i r s i m a i i i p r o b l e m : t h a l
o f d i s l i i i g u i s l i i n g t h e f e a t u r e s o f a r g u m e n t s i u d i f T e r e n t fields w h i c h a r e
field-invariant f r o m t h o s e that a r e f i e l d - t l e p e u d e n l . W e c a n e l i c i t i h e a n -
swer, by t a k i n g o n e o f t h e m o d a l t e n n s a l r e a d y i n e n ü o n e d a n d s e e i n g
w h a l r e i n a i n s t h e s a m e a n d w h a t c h a i i g e s w h e n w e c o n s i d e r its c l i a r a c t e r -
istic m a n n e r o f e u i p l o y u i e i i t , first i n o n e f i e l d o f a r g u m e n t a n d t h e n i n
o t h e r s . W l i i c h t e r m s h a l l w e c h o o s e l o e x a m i n e ? It m i g h t s e e m n a t u r a l ,
i n v i e w o f t h e i r l o i i g ¡ i h i l o s o p l i i í a l h i s t o i y , \o c h o o s e e i t h e r d i e not i o n
o f ' n e c e s s i t y ' o r t h a l o f ' [ ) r o b a b i l i t y ' ; b u t f o r o u r p r e s e n t j ) i i r j ) o s e s this
l o i i g h i s t o i y is a l i a i i d i c a p l a d i e r i b a n a l i e l p , for i l g i v e s r i s e to t l i e o -
r e l i c a l p r e c o n c e p ü o n s w h i c h m a y g e t i n o u r way n o w t h a l w e a r e t r y i n g ,
n o t to e s t a b l i s h a n y fjoiiit o f t h e o r y , b u t s i m p l y to e l n c i d a t e t h e u s e t h e s e
c o n c e p t s h a v e i n t h e w o r k a d a y b u s i n e s s o f as.sessiiig a r g u m e n t s . S o leí
US b e g i n b y c o n s i d e r i n g a m o d a l t e r m n o t h i d i e r t o m u c h r e g a r d e d by
[ ) l i i l o s o i ) l i e r s — t h e v e r b ' c a n n o t ' . (As will be seeii shortly, d i e a p p l i c a t i o n
o f t h e v e r b a l f o r m ' c a n n o t ' is r a t h e r w i d e r t h a n t h a l o f t h e a b s t r a c t i i o u i i
' i m p o s s i b i l i i y ' , s o w e c a n a í f o r d to c o n c e n l r a t e o n t h e v e i b . ) ' T h e first
c | u e s t i o n s we m u s í a s k a r e , u n d e r w h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e s w e m a k e u s e o f
l i l i s i j a r t i c u l a r m o d a l v e r b , a n d w h a t w e a r e u n d e r s t o o d to i n d í c a l e by it.
W h e n we h a v e f o u n d l l i e a n s w e r s l o t h e s e ( j u e s t i o n s i n a n u n i b e r o f f i e l d s
o f a r g u m e n t , w c m u s t g o o n to a s k h o w f a r t h e i m p l i c a ü o n s o f u s i n g s u c h
a2 l'u'ULs oj Aigiuiwnl and Modals
a veri) a i u l i h e c r i t e r i a for d e c i d i n g that it c a n a p p r o p r i a t e l y b e u s e d vary
f r o m í i e l d to f i e l d .
L e t u s , t h e r e f o r e , st;irt o í l w i t h a b a t c h o f s i t u a l i o n s i n w h i c h t h e w o r d
' c a n n o t ' is n a t u r a l l y n s e d . T h e first s t e p i n d e a l i n g w i t h o u r ] ) r o b l e m
w i l l b e to c o m p a r e t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s . ' Y o n c a i n i o t ' , w e m i g h t tell s o m e o n c
o n o n e o c c a s i o n o r another, 'Hit a ton s i n g l e - h a n d e d , g e l ten i h o u s a n d
p e o p l e i n t o t h e T o w n H a l l , t a l k a b o u t a f o x ' s t a i l , o r a b o u t a s i s t e r as
m a l e , s m o k e i n a n o n - s m o k i n g c o m p a r t m e n l , t u r n yoiu" s o n a w a y w i l h o u t
a s h i l l i n g , f o r c é d e f e n d a n t ' s wife l o teslify, a s k a b o u l t h e w e i g h t o f fire,
c o u s t r u c t a r c g u l a i h e p t a g o n o r f i n d a m i m b e r w h i c h is b o t h l a t i o n a l
a n d d i e sqiiarc- l o o t o f l w o . ' W e m u s t r u n o v e r a s t r i n g o f s u c h e x a m p l e s ,
a n d s e e w h a t is a c h i e v e d i n e a c h c a s e by u s i n g t h c w o r d ' c a i u i o t ' . ( O n e
|)oinl i n p a s s i n g — I have deliberately o m i t t e d from this b a t c h o f e x a m p l e s
s o m e w h i c h a r e ¡jhilosophicallyof great i m p o n a n c e : naniely, those involv-
i n g ' f o n n a l ' i m p o s s i b i l i t i e s . T h e p r e s e n t s e t is c o n f i n e d to fairly f a m i l i a r
'can'ts' o r ' c a i u i o l s ' , c o n c e r n e d with straighiforward j)ractical, physical,
linguislic a u d p r o c e d u r a l impossibilities a n d im|)i()prieties. My reason
f o r d o i n g s o is t h i s : i n c a s e s o f f o r m a l i m p o s s i b i l i t y , o n e o i m o r e o f t h e s e
s i m p l e r s o r t s o f i m p o s s i b i l i t y a n d i m | ) r o p i ¡ c t y is ( o u u u o n l y i n v o l v c d as
well, the relative i n i p o r l a n c e o f the formal a n d n o n - f o r m a l impossibilities
v a i y i n g f r o m c a s e to c a s e . W e m u s t s o r t o u t t h e n o n - f o r m a l inipo.ssibili-
ties a n d i m p r o p r i e t i e s , a n d s e e w h a t t h e y i n v o l v e , b e f o r e i n t r o d u c i n g t h i '
extra e l e m e n t o f formal impossibility. W e shall in a n y case be r e t u r n i u g
to t h i s to|)ic i n a l a t e r essay.)
I n s t u d y i u g these e x a m p l e s , h o w shall we begin? W e c a n take a tip f r o m
t h e A//ír/í j o k e c i u o t e d as a s u p e r s c r i p f i o n at t h c b e g i n n i n g o f this essay.
( ; i e a r l y , a m a n w h o says ' X c a n ' t d o Y' is i n s o m e c a s e s u n d e r s t o o d to i m [ ) l y
t h a l X h a s n o l r e c e n d y d o n e Y, is n o t d o i n g s o n o w , a n d w i l l n o l d o s o i n
the n e a r futuie; whereas s o m e uses o f ' c a n n o t ' c a n y n o s u c h implication
w h a t e v e r . W i t h i b i s d i f f e r e n c e i n m i n d , it will b e w o r t h a s k i n g , a b o u t e a c h
o f o u r <-xam])les, w h a t w e s h o u l d d i i n k i f t h e m a n to w h o m w e s a i d ' Y o n
c a n ' t d o X ' w e r e to r e p l y ' B u l I h a v e ' ; a n d w e c a n a d d l o t h i s t h e f u r t h e r
c i u e s t i o n , w h a l s o r t s o f g r o u n d s e i u i d e u s i n a n y p a r t i c u l a r c a s e to say
' Y o n c a n ' t d o A " — w h a t w o u l d h a v e to b e d i f f e r e n t f o r o u r c l a i m l o h a v e
l o b e r e j e c l e d , a n d f o r it l o p r o v e , a f t e r a l l , to h a v e b e e n u n j u s t i f i e d . T h e
examples may be taken i n turn.
( a j A l a r g e p i e c e o f m e t a l falls f r o m a l o r r y o n to t h e r o a d . T h e d r i v e r ,
a p a l é , s e e d y - k ) o k i n g y o u n g m a n , gets d o w n f r o m h i s c a b a u d m a k e s
t o w a r d s i t a s i f to p i c k it u p . W e s e e t h i s a n d s a y to h i m , ' Y o n c a n ' t lift
that weight single-handed: h a n g o n a m o m e n t , while I get h e l p o r s o m e
InifMw/biHlif's and /wpiopríeties
lifting-tackle.' H e replies, 'Bless y o n , I've d o n e the like often enough',
a u d g o i n g u p to it h o i s t s it deftly ba( k o n to t h e l o r i y a g a i n .
S o m e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f o u r s t a t e m e n t c a n b e b r o n g h l o u t at o n c e . B y
doing what h e does, the driver sinprises us, a n d his action irreniediably
falsifies w h a t w e p r e v i o u s l y s a i d . W e l i a d u n d e r - e s t i m a t e d h i s s l r e n g t h ,
a u d h a d t h o u g h t h i m p h y s i c a l l y i n c a p a b l e o f t h e task: it d e m a u d e d , w e
thought, s o m e o n c o f stronger physicjue, a n d lilis was ini[)lied i u o u r l e -
m a r k . W h a t was o n l y i m j i l i c i t i n t h e a c t u a l s t a t e m e n t c a n b e m a d e e x p l i c i l
by r e - w r i t i i i g i l i n t h e f o r m :
'Your physitpie b e i n g what it i s , y o n c a n ' t lifi that w e i g h t s i n g l e -
h a n d e d — t o a l i e m p t to d o s o w o u l d b e v a i n . '
It m a y b e a s k e d w h e t h e r t h e r e is r e a l l y a n a r g u m e n t h e r e at a l l . N o l a n
elabórate o r fully-lledged o n e , cerlainly: b u l llie essentials are there. F o r
o u r i m p l i e d c l a i m is n o t o n l y that t h e m a n wd¡ n o t Hit t h e w e i g h t s i n g l e -
h a n d e d , b u t that w e h a v e r e a s o n s f o r t h i n k i n g h i s d o i n g s o o u t o f t h e
( p i e s n o i i . I f o u r c l a i m is c l i a l l e n g e d , w e h a v e g r o u n d s , b a c k i n g , to p o i n t
to i u o r d e r l o i n d i c a t e w h a t l e a d s u s l o r e a c h this ¡ m n i c u l a r conclusión
a n d r u l e o u t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r pt)ssibility. H e will n o t lift t h e w e i g l i l s i n g l e -
h a n d e d : that is t h e c o n c l u s i ó n , a n d w e p u l it f o r w a r d o n a c c o n n t o f b i s
p h y s i q u e . W e m a y b e n i i s t a k e n a b o u t h i s a c t u a l p h y s i q u e , b u t this d o e s
u o l a f l e c t t h e q u e s f i o n o f r e l e v a n c e : t h e pliysic|ue w e t a k e h i m to h a v e
is c e r l a i n l y r e l e v a n t w h e n w e a s k t h e ( | u e s f i o n w l i e l l i e r h e w i l l — i n d e e d
ran—lift the weight alone.
(b) A f r i e n d is a r r a u g i n g a p u b l i c m e e t i u g i n t h e T o w n H a l l , a u d s e n d s
o u t p r e s s i i i g i n v i t a t i o u s to t e n l l i o u s a n d p e o p l e . O u i n c p i i r y , w e find that
h e p r o f e s s e s to e x p e c t t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e m to t u r n u p o n t h e day. F ' e a r i n g
that h e m a y h a v e o v e r l o o k e d o n e p r a c t i c a l o b j e c l i o n l o t h i s p r o j e c t , w e
say, ' Y o n c a n ' t get t e n l l i o u s a n d p e o p l e i n l o d i e T o w n H a l l . '
T h i s t i m e , of c o u r s e , w e a r e s c e p t i c a l n o t abt)iit h i s p e r s o n a l p o w e r s o r
c a ] ) a b i l i t i e s , as i n t h e ca.se o f t h e s e e d y H e r c u l e s w h o s u r p r i s e d u s b y l i f t i n g
the large l u i i i p o f m e t a l , but r a t h e r o n a c c o u u l o f tlu; seal-capacity oí the
l o w i i H a l l . l í o i u f r i e n d i e | ) l i e s , ' B u t I h a v e ! ' w c m a y f e e l l i k e r c t o r l i n g that
it c e r l a i n l y c a n n o t b e d o n e ; a n d , i f h e i n s i s t s , w c s h a l l b e c o m e s u s p i c i o u s
a n d s u s p e c t h i m o f r e s o i t i n g to s o m e k i n d o f v e r b a l t r i c k e i y . W e m a y
accordingly ask i n retiirn, ' W h a l d o yon m e a n ? ' — b u t by t h e t i m e w e
c o m e t o a s k t h i s , t h e e x a n i p h ; w i l l h a v e c h a n g e d its c l i a r a c t e r , a n d t h e
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r e l e v a n l will n o w b e q u i t e d i f F e r e n t . T h e s e c o m p l i c a t i o n s
a p a i t, w e c a n r e - w r i t e o u r s t a t e m e n t , m o r e e x j j l i c i l l y , i n i h e w o r d s :
' T h e s e a f i i i g - c a p a c i l y o f t h e T o w n H a l l b e i n g w h a l it i s , y o n c a n ' l get
ten t h o u s a n d p e o p l e i n l o i t — t o attempt to d o so w o u l d be v a i n . '
«4 Fields of Argiiment and Modals
lu this ( a s e , l o o , it niay be o b j e c t t c l l l i a l we are not r o n s i d e i i i i g a
g e n u i n o a r g i i n i e n t . B u t the bonos o f a n arguinent are i n d e e d h e r e : the
c o n c l u s i ó n is that o u r f r i e n d will not succeed i n g e l t i n g ten i h o u s a n d
peoplo i n l o i h e Town H a l l oven i f he ti ios, a n d the g i o u n d s for this
c o n c l u s i ó n a r e the facis a b o u l the s e a l i n g K a p a c i l y o f the b u i l d i n g — t h e s e
facts b e i n g what they a r e , h i s p r o j e c t must be n i l e d out.
( r ) T h o s e íirsl two o x a m p l e s have b e e n r a l h e r a l i k e , b u l h e r e is a
c t m t r a s t i n g oiu-. A l o w n s i n a n r e l i i r n s f r o n i ihe ( o u i i t r y a n d describes a
n i s t i c spectacle w h i c h he has w a t c h o d . ' A troop o f cavalry i n r e d j a c k e t s
w e r e t h i i d d i n g a l o n g , ' he o x p l a i n s , ' a n d i n f r o n i o f i h e m a h o r d o f dogs
was s i r i i n g out across the field, s l i o i i t i n g noisily as they gradually r e d u c o d
the distance se|)araling i h e i n f r o i n the tail o f a m i s e r a b l e fox.' O n e o f
h i s h e a r e r s , a devotee o f blood-sports, c o r r e é i s his d e s c r i p t i o n scornfully,
saying, ' M y doar fellow, y o n c a n ' t l a l k about a fox's tail; a n d as for the
"dogs", I suppose yon m e a n the h o i i n d s ; a n d the "cavalry i n r e d j a c k e t s "
w e r e h i H i t s m o n in t h e i r p i n k coats.' . '
I n this e x a i n p l e , o f c o u r s e , there is n o question o f a n y o f the things
m e n l i o n o d i n i h e storv b e i n g insufficioni i n soine respeci for the impos-
siblo to be possible: i n d e e d , the m a n w h o is told that h e frtHwoHalk a b o u l
a fox's tail has i n factjust d o n e so. T h e p o i n t at issue i n this case is a c c o r d -
ingly different, a n d the w o r d ' c a n n o t ' indicalos not so m u c h a physicai
impossibilily as a t o r i n i n o l o g i c a l impwpriety. By t a l k i n g o f the I b x ' s tail,
the s p e a k e r does not falsify the l ) e l i e f o f his h e a r e r s , but instead is guilty
o f a lingnistií solecism. We must therefore ainplify this statenieni l a i l i o i
dinerently:
" I h e t e n n i n o l o g y o f h u n t i n g b e i n g as it is, y o n c a n ' t talk about a fox's
l a i l — t o d o so is a n ofience against s p o r t i n g iisage.'
(í/) We aro a s k e d lo road the m a i u i s c r i p t o f a n e w n o v e l , a n d o n d o i i i g
so f i n d o n e o f the c h a r a c t e r s r e f e r r e d to i n some places as b e i n g a n o t l i o r
person's sister, a n d elsewhere as ' h e ' . W i s h i n g to save the a u t h o r f r o m the
i n o c k e r y o f l i t e r a i y slouths, we p o i n t this out to h i m , saying, 'Yon c a n ' l
have a malo sister.'
N o w w h a l pi ocisely is at issue i n this case? O n the o n e h a n d , t h e r e is n o
question h e r e about anybody's p e r s o n a l capacities o r c o n s t i t i i t i o i i . This
is n o l , diroctly al any r a l e , a mattor o f physiology, fbr, o u r n o m e n c l a l u r o
l o m a i n i n g what i l is, not oven the m o s i draslic |)hys¡ological changos
w o u l d onablo a sister to lie malo: a n y chango o f sex, for i n s t a n c e , w h i c h
t r a n s f o n i i c d h o r i n t e a n i a l e w o u l d ipso Jacto m a k e h e r a b r o t h e r , a n d so
not a sisler any longor. At the same t i m e , o n e nnisi hesitate to say that this
is a p u i e l y l i n g u i s l i c e x a m p l e , as the previous o n e c l e a r l y is. O n e c o u l d
Impossibililies and Improprieties »5
hardly say that t a l k i n g o f a ' m a l e sister' wasjust bad E n g l i s h , l i k e t a l k i n g o f
a fox's c a u d a l a p p e n d a g o as a ' t a i l ' instead o f as a ' b r u s h ' . T h e townsman's
d e s c r i p t i o n o f a fox-hunt was perfectly i n l e l l i g i b l o a n d ils defects were n o
m o r e t h a n linguistic solecisms, but a n a u t h o r w h o w r o l o a b o u l o n e t)f his
c h a r a c t e r s b o t h as a sister a n d as m a l e w o u l d l i s k m o r e t h a n the r i d i c u l e
o f h u n t i n g tyjjes, since h e w o u l d n o t e v e n he u n d e r s t o o d . W h a t matters
h e t e , we a r e i n q ) e l l o d to s a y — i h o u g h l l i o statomeiil m a y be obscuro—is
n o t j u s t the usago t)f tlie terms ' m a l e ' , l ó m a l o ' , ' b r o t h e r ' a n d 'sister'; i t
is tlie m e a n i n g .
I f we aro a s k e d k ) o x p l a i n w h y o n r a u t h o r h a d better not i n c l u d e a 'malo
sister' i n his n o v e l , we therefore have l o refor both to i h o l o r m i n o l o g i o s o f
sexos a n d r o l a l i o n s h i p s , a n d to the second-ordor reasons w h y those t e r m i -
nologies take tlie forms they do. N o d o u b t a suflicient c h a n g o i n the facts
o f l i l e — e . g . a s i r i k i n g incroaso i n the p r o p o r l i o n o f h e i - m a p h r o d i t e s —
m i g l i l load iis to revise o u r n o n i e n c l a t u r o , a n d so c r é a t e a situation i n
w h i c h r e f e r e n c e s l o ' m a l e sisters' w o u l d n o l o n g e r be i m i n t e l l i g i b l e . B u t
as things i n fací a r e , o u r n o m o n c l a l u r e b e i n g as i l is, the p h r a s e ' m a l o
sisler' has n o m e a n i n g ; a n d i h i s o f c o u r s e is the c o n s i d e r a l i o n we have i n
i n i n d w h e n we loll o u r a u t h o r that h e c a n n o t w r i l e a b o u t o n e .
A c c o r d i n g l y , if he replies, ' B u t I c a n have a m a l e sister', s u r j j r i s e o r
sce])ticisin will be oiitiroly out o f placo. I h e s o loactions w e r e a l l voiy woll
i n Üie case o f iho m a n w h o insislod that he c o u l d l i l i the hoavy w e i g h l ,
b u t i f a m a n says, ' I c a n have a m a l e sister', o n e c a n only reply by saying,
' W h a t d o y o n m e a n ? ' P u l i n l o o u r u s u a l íbriii, this o x a m p l e boconies:
' T h e i u ) m o n c l a t u r e o f sexos a n d r o l a l i o n s h i p s b e i n g what it is, yon
c a n ' l have a malo sister—oven to lalk of O n e is i i n i n l e l l i g i b l e . '
A b o u t these first four o x a m p l e s , two l o m a r k s c a n be m a d e . T o b e g i n
w i t h , o n e m i g h l i h i n k ihat there was a n i i n b i i d g e a b l e gulf, a h a r d a n d
fast l i n o , s o p a i a t i n g iho first lwo f r o m the socond lwo: i n p r a c t i c o , liow-
ever, they oftoii sliado i n l o o n e a n o t h e r . S o m e o n e may, for i n s t a n c e , say
lo m e , ' Y o n l l i i n k ihat o n e can't lifi a ton singlo-handod? T h a t shows how
m u c h yon know. W h y today I w a t c h o d a m a n lif ting a h i m d i o d tons singlc-
h a i i d o d ! ' I f i h i s h a p p o n s , my p r o p o r r o a c l i o n will be n o l o n g e r o n e o f
s u i j j i i s e , but r a l h e r o n e o f i n c o m p r e h e n s i o n : the íirsl tyjjo o f e x a m p l e
shados ovor, thoroforo, i n l o the f o i i r t h . F o r I shall suspoct that, i n this
case, tho pliraso l i f l i n g . . . singlo-handod' is b e i n g given a frosh m e a n -
ing. P r e s u i n a b l y what tho sj^eaker saw was (say) a m a n o p o r a t i n g a large
m e c h a n i c a l e x c a v a t o r at a n open-cast i n i n i n g site. N o doubt a h i m d r e d
tons was b e i n g m o v e d at a l i m e t h r o u g l i i h o agoncy o f o n e m a n a l o n o , b u l
h e h a d a v a s l m a c h i n o lo h e l p h i m , o r s o m e l h i n g similar. L i k e w i s e w i t h
 Fields of Ar(runwnt and Modals
ilit' s ( ( o i u l e x a m p l e : a m a n w h o says h e c a n get t e n t h o u s a n d p e o p l e i n t o
the I b w n H a l l m a y again be p l a y i n g a linguistic trick w i t h us: w h e n we
say, ' W h a t d o y o n m e a n ? ' , his l e s p o n s e may be to p r o d u c e a c a l c u l a t i o n
s h o w i n g that the w h o l e p o p u l a t i o n of the w o r l d c a n be got i n t o a c u b e
h a l f a m i l e i n e a c h d i r e c t i o n , a n d afortiori that a m e r e ten t h o u s a n d c o u l d
easily be p a c k e d i n t o the volunte o f the T o w n H a l l . A n d o f c o u r s e , i f theii
s i n v i v a l w e r e n o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a g r e a l m a n y m o r e t h a n ten t h o u s a n d
j K ' o p l e c o u l d n o d o u b i be got i n t o the l'own H a l l .
T h e s e c o n d p o i n t , to be m e n t i o n e d h e r e o n l y i n passing, w i l l be i m p o r -
tan! w h e n we t u r n later to c o n s i d e r the n a l u r e o f f o r m a l a n d t h e o r e t i c a l
i m p o s s i b i l i l i e s . Scientific i h e o r i e s i n c l u d e a n u m b e r o f very f u n d a m e n t a l
p r i n c i p i e s w h i c h refer to ' t h e o r e t i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i l i e s ' : for i n s t a n c e , the
famous impossibility o f r e d u c i n g e n t r o p y — t h e so-called s e c o n d law o f
t h e r m o d y n a m i c s . N o w in discussing the philoso|)hical i m p l i c a t i o n s o f
s u c h theories, o n e is tem|)ted at (irsi l o c o i n { ) a r e t h e m with the four sorts
o f ' c a n n o l ' w h i c h we have e x a m i n e d ii|) to now. O n e starts by feeling, that
is, that s u c h iin])ossibililies must be e i t h e r s o l i d , physicai ini])ossibilities
( l i k e ihose i n v o l v e d in the first two e x a i n p l e s ) o r e l s e disguised t e r m i n o -
logical i m p r o p r i e t i e s ( l i k e the s e c o n d p a i r ) . F l n l o s o p h e r s o f physics a r e ,
accordingly, d i v i d e d between those w h o c o n s i d e r that s u c h impossibili-
ties r e p í j i l g e n e r a l features o f N a t u r e o r Reality a n d those w h o c o n s i d e r
that the p i o p o s i t i o n s c o i i c e r n e d a r e at b o t t o m aiialytic |)ropositions, the
' c a n n o t ' i n v o l v e d b e i n g therefore a t e r m i n o l o g i c a l i m p r o p r i e t y r a l h e r
t h a n a r e a l , |)hysical impossibility. T h e o r i g i n o f s u c h a t h e o r e t i c a l iinpo.s-
sibility is a c c o r d i n g l y sought for i n o n l y two places: e i t h e r i n the n a t u r e o f
the universe-as-a-whole (the c h a r a c t e r o f t h i n g s - i n - g e n e r a l ) , o r a l t e r n a -
tively i n the t e n n i n o l o g y a d o p t e d by t h e o r e t i c a l physicists w h e n b u i l d i n g
uj) t h e i r theories. At this point i n the a r g u m e n t , I want to r e m a r k o n l y
thai the four e x a i n p l e s discussed u p to now are n o t the solé possible
objects o f c o n i p a i i s o n . F h i s topic, too, will c o n c e r n us a g a i n i n a later
essay.
(e) A g u a r d o n a train finds a passenger i n a n o n - s m o k i n g com])art-
m e n t s m o k i n g a cigarette w h i l e a n o í d lady i n the c o m p a r t m e n t c o u g h s
a n d weeps u n d e r the i n f l u e n c e o f the tobacco-smoke. I n e x c r c i s e o f his
a u l h o r i t y , h e says to the passenger, ' Y o n can't s m o k e i n this c o m p a r t -
m e n t , Sir.'
B y saying this the g u a r d imjjücitly invokes the R a i l w a y C o m j j a n y ' s
regulations a n d bye-laws. T h e r e is n o suggestion that the passenger is
i n c a p a b l e o f s m o k i n g i n this c o m p a r t m e n t , o r that a n y f e a t u i e o f the
c o m p a r t m e n t w i l l p r e v e n t his d o i n g s o — t l i e case is a c c o r d i n g l y d i f f e r e n t
Impossibilities and Improprieties 27
f r o m b o t h (a) a n d (b). Ñ o r is the g u a r d c o n c e m e d , as i n ( r ) a n d (d),
with qiiestions o f language o r m e a n i n g . W h a t h e draws a t t e n t i o n to is the
fact that s m o k i n g i n this p a r t i c u l a r c o m p a r t m e n t is a n offence against
the regulations a n d bye-laws, w h i c h s e l aside c e r t a i n c o i n j n i r t m e n t s for
those w h o find t o b á c e o s m o k e o b n o x i o u s : this is n o t the p r o p e r place for
s m o k i n g , a n d the passenger h a d better go elsewhere. T h e sense o f the
guard's r e m a r k is:
' T h e bye-laws b e i n g as they are, y o n can't s m o k e i n this c o m p a r t m e n t ,
S i r — t o d o so w o u l d be a c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f t h e m a n d / o r a n offence against
y o i i r fellow passengers.'
( / ) A stern father d e n o u n c e s his son as a dissolute wastrel, a n d l u r n s
h i m o u t o f the house. A f r i e n d i n t e r c e d e s o n the son's behalf, saying,
' Y o n c a n ' t t u m h i m away w i t h o u t a s h i l l i n g ! '
A s i n the Punch, e x a m p l e , the m a n addressed may he t e m p t e d to reply,
' C a n ' t I? Y o n j u s t w a t c h m e ! ' ; a n d n o t h i n g about the m a n a d d r e s s e d o r
a l x ) u t his son w i l l as a m a t t e r o f fact be c e r t a i n to p r e v e n t his d o i n g so.
A l t e r n a t i v e l y he may answer, ' N o t o n l y c a n I , I must: it is m y s o r i y duty so
to fio'; a n d this re|)ly r e m i n d s us o f the t r u e forcé o f the o r i g i n a l j^rotest
o r a p p e a l . T h e q u e s t i o n raised i n this case is a m o r a l o n e , c o n c e r n e d with
the m a n ' s obligations towards his s o n . T h e friend's i n t e r c e s s i o n c a n be
written m o r e e x p l i c i t l y i n the words:
' S t a n d i i i g i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p yon d o to this l a d , yon can't t u r n h i m
away w i t h o u t a s h i l l i n g — t o d o so w o u l d be u n f a t h e r l y a n d w r o n g . '
T h e s e e x a i n p l e s a r e v a r i e d e n o u g h to show a g e n e r a l p a t t e r n e m e r g -
i n g . We c o u l d o f c o u r s e go o n to c o n s i d e r o t h e r s , w h i c h i n v o l v e d not
so m u c h physicai imjjossibilities, l i n g u i s t i c solecisms, legal o r m o r a l o l -
fences, but r a t h e r i m p r o p r i e t i e s o f j u d i c i a l p r o c e d u r e ( ' Y o n c a n ' t forcé
defendant's wife to testify'), c o n c e p t u a l i n c o n g r u i t i e s ( ' Y o n can't ask
a b o u l the weiglit of l i r e ' ) , o r m a t h e m a t i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i l i e s — a n d about
this last ty|je we s h a l l have s o m e t h i n g to say i n a m o m e n t . B u t the c o i n -
m o n i m p l i c a t i o n o f a l l these statements, n i a r k e d by the use o f the w o r d
' c a n n o t ' , s h o u l d be c l e a r by now. I n e a c h case, the p r o p o s i t i o n serves
in ])ar( as a n i n j i i n c t i o n to rule out s o m e t h i n g - o r - o l h e r — t o dismiss f r o m
c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n y c o u r s e o f a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g this s o m e t h i n g - o r - o t h e i — l o
rule o u l , for e x a m p l e , courses o f a c t i o n w h i c h w o u l d involve l i f l i n g a ton
s i n g l e - h a n d e d , t a l k i n g about a fox's tail, o r f o r c i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s wife lo
leslify. T h e s e courses o f a c t i o n , it is i m p l i e d , a r e ones against w h i c h there
are c o n d u s i v e reasons; a n d the w o r d ' c a n n o t ' serves to l ó c a t e e a c h state-
ment at this p a r t i c u l a r place i n a n a r g u m e n t , as c o n c e r n e d with the r u l i n g
o u t o f o n e r e l e v a n t possibility.
 X FicMs of Argument and Modals
W h a l ( o i i i i t s as ' l u h n g o u t ' the t h i i i g c o i i c e r n e d varíes f r o m case to
case; tlie i m p H e d g r o i m d s for r i i h n g - o i U , a n d the s a n c ü o n risked i n ig-
n o r i n g the i n j t n i c l i o n , v a i y e v e n m o r e m a r k e d l y ; ñ o r n e e d there lie any
í b r m a l r u l e by r e f e r e n c e to w h i c h the ruling-out is to be j u s t i ü e d . S t i l l ,
subject to diese <iual¡íications, what is c o n u n o n to all the statements re-
i n a i n s . P^ach o f t h e m c a n be w r i t t e n i n the following p a t t e r n so as to b r i n g
o u l the i m p l i c a t i o n s involved:
' f b e i n g what it is, y o n must r u l e out a n y t h i n g i n v o l v i n g Q;. to d o
o t h e r w i s e w o u l d b e / í , a n d w o u l d invite 5.'
T h e f o r m is c o n u n o n to all the oxam p l es : w h a l v a i y f r o m case to case
aro tho things we have lo s i i b s t i l u l e for P, Q, /í a n d .S'. ( ) is i n e a c h caso
tho c o u r s e o f a c t i o n actually specified i n the statement: lifting a ton
singlo-handod, l a l k i n g a b o u l a fox's l a i l , l u r n i n g o n e ' s s o n away without
a s h i l l i n g , a s k i n g ai)out the w e i g h l o f firo, o r c o n s t r u c t i n g a r e g u l a r liop-
tagon. P will be, i n differoiit casos, tho l o n y drivor's ])hysique, fox-huntor's
j a r g o n , a father's r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h his s o n , the concejjLs o f physics a n d
c h o m i s l i y , o r l l u ' a x i o m s o f geomotry a n d tho n a t u r e o f g o o m e t r i c a l oiior-
ations: those are the g r o i m d s r e l i e d o n i n e a c h caso. T h e offence i n v ol v ed
{R) a n d the penalties r i s k e d ( 5 ) also vary f r o m case to case: to ignoro a
physicai impossibility w i l l be v a i n , a n d will load lo d i s a p p o i n i m e n t ; l o ig-
noro a p o i i i l o f l o r m i n o l o g y w i l l result r a l h e r i n a s o l e c i s m , c a r i y i n g w i l h
it tho risk o f r i d i c u l o ; lo ignoro m o r a l i n j n n c t i o n s is (say) w i c k o d a n d u n -
fatherly but, v i r l u e b e i n g ils o w n r e w a r d , n o specific s a n c ü o n is a t t a c h e d
lo t h e m : whilc-, finally, a { p i o s l i o n i n v o l v i n g a c o n t r a d i c t i o n o r a conco])-
l u a l i n c o n g i u i t y ( l i k e 'the w e i g h l o f l i r e ' o r ' a m a l e s i s l e r ' ) is as it slands
i m i n t e l l i g i b l e , .so t h a l i n a s k i n g i t o n e r i i n s the risk o f i n c o m p r e h e n s i o n .
Forcé and Criteria
A t l i l i s p o i n i a d i s t i n c t i o n c a n be m a d e , w h i c h w i l l p r ov e later o f g r e a l
i m p o r i a i u o . T h e m e a n i n g o f a m o d a l t e r m , s u c h as ' c a n n o t ' , has two
asjjocts: those c a n be roforred to as the forceoíúw t o n n a n d tho rriliria for
ils use. B y the ' f o r c é ' o f a m o d a l t e r m I m e a n the p r a c ü c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f
ils use: the f o r c é o f the t e r m ' c a n n o t ' i n c l u d e s , for i n s t a n c e , i h e i m p l i e d
g e n e r a l i n j u n c t i o n t h a l something-or-other has l o be r u l e d out i n this-
o r - t h a l way a n d for such-a-ioasoii. T h i s forcé c a n be c o n t r a s t e d with the
c r i t e r i a , standards, g r o u n d s a n d reasons, by r e f e r e n c e to w h i c h we d e c i d e
i n any c o n t e x l that the uso o f a p a r t i c u l a r m o d a l t e r m is a p p r o p r i a t o .
We a r e e n t i t l e d l o say i h a t s o m e possibility has to be r u l e d o u l o n l y i f
we c a n p r o d u c e g r o u n d s o r reasons lo j i i s ü í y Üiis d a i i n , a n d u n d o r the
Forre and Criteria 29
t e r m ' c r i t e r i a ' c a n be i n c l u d e d the m a n y sorts o f things we have t h e n to
p r o d u c e . We say, for i n s t a n c e , that s o m e l h i n g is physically, m a t h o i n a l i c a l l y
o r physiologically impossiblo, t h a l it is t e r m i n o l o g i c a l l y o r linguistically
o u l o f ordor, o r else m o r a l l y o r j u d i c i a l l y i m p r o p o r : ¡I is to be r u l e d out,
accordingly, qua s o m e l h i n g o r o l h e r . A n d w h e n we slart e x p l a i n i n g 'qua
w h a t ' any | ) a r t i cular i h i n g is to be n i l o d out, we show w h a t c r i t e r i a we are
a p p oa l i n g lo i n this p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n .
T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f tho d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n forcé a n d c r i t e r i a w i l l be-
( o m e fully c l e a r o n l y as we go a l o n g . I t c a n be h i n t e d at, p o i h a p s , i f we
look for a m o m e n t at the n o l i o n o f m a t h e m a t i c a l impossibilily. M a n y the-
o r e m s i n g e o m o t i y a n d puro m a t h e m a t i c s state i m p o s s i b i l i l i e s o f 0110 s o n
o r a n o l h o r : they toll us, e.g., thal it is impossiblo lo construct a r e g u l a r
h e j ) l a g o i i using n i l o r a n d compass, a n d that yon c a n n o l f i n d a r a t i o n a l
scpiaro r ool o f 2. S u c h a c o n s t r u c t i o n o r s u c h a sfjuare r o o l is, we aro t o l d ,
a m a t h e m a t i c a l impossibilily.
N o w what is i n v o l v e d i n saying this? W h a t precisely is s i g n i í i e d by this
phrase ' m a d i e m a l i c a l ¡m|)fjssibility?' I l is oasy to give too s i m p l e a n a n -
swer, a n d we m u s t n o t be i n a h u n y . T h o n a t u r a l t h i n g to look a l first is the
p r o c e d u r e m a l h e m a t i c i a n s have to go t h r o u g h i n o r d e r to p rove a i h e -
o r e m o f this .sort—to show, for i n s t a n c e , that there c a n n o t be a r a t i o n a l
s(piare r o o l o f 2. W h e n wo i n q u i r o w h a l ihoy oslablish i n s u c h a |)roof, wo
find thal ono i h i n g is o f s u p r e m o i m p o r t a n c e . T h e n o l i o n o f ' a r a t i o n a l
sciuare r o o l o f 2' loads us into c o n t r a d i c t i o n s : f r o m the a.ssumption that
a n u m b e r x is r a t i o n a l a n d that ils s(|uaro is ecpial to 2, wo c a n by b r i o f
c l i a i n s o f a r g m n o n l r e a c h two m u t u a l l y c o n t r a d i c l o i y c o n c l u s i o n s . This
is tho r e a s o n , the conclusivo r e a s o n , w h y m a l h e m a t i c i a n s a r e l e d to c o n -
sitlor the i d e a that a n y a c t u a l n u m b e r x c o u l d have b o t h ihese p r o p e r ü e s
a n iin|K)ssibl(' ono.
I l a v i n g l o i n a r k o d o n this, wo may be t e m p t e d l o c o n c l u d e a l o n c e
t h a l we have the a n s w e r to o u r ( l u e s l i o n — n a m e l y , that the p h r a s e ' m a t h -
omatically i m p o s s i b l o ' just moans ' s e l f - t o n i r a d i c t o i y , o r l e a d i i i g l o solf-
c o n t r a d i c l i o n s ' . B u t this is too s i m p l e : to i m d e r s t a n d tho n o U o n pro|>
orly, o n e m u s t pay a t t o n l i o u , not o n l y to w h a t m a l h e m a t i c i a n s d o before
r o a c h i n g Uie c o n c l u s i ó n that s o m e t h i n g is impossiblo, b u t also l o w h a l
they do altor r e a c h i n g this conclusi<}n a n d in fow.sw/í/í'/wío/ h a v i n g r e a c h o d
i l . T h o existonce o f a m a t h o m a l i c a l iin|)ossibility is n o l o n l y s o m e t h i n g
w h i c h r e q u i r e s p r o v i n g , it is also s o m e l h i n g w h i c h has i m p l i c a t i o n s . T o
show the presenco o f tho c o n t r a d i c t i o n s may be all that is r e q u i r e d by a
m a t h o m a ü c i a n i f h e is to b o j u s l i f i o d i n saying that tho n o l i o n x i s a m a t h -
e m a t i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i l y — i l may, t l i a l is, be a conclusivo d e m o n s l r a t i o n o f
 l'it'lds oj Argument and Modals
i l s i m | ) ( ) s s i h i l i l y — b u t the f o r c é o f c a l l i n g it inipossible involves m o r e i b a n
sim|)ly l a b e l l i i i g it as 'leachng l o c o n l r a d i c t i o n s ' . T h e n o t i o i i x involves
o n e i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a n d is tlwrefore or afrordinglya.n im|}ossibility: it is
im])ossible on accounl o/ the c o n l r a d i c t i o n s , inipossible rpia l e a d i n g o n e
i n t o c o n t r a d i c t i o n s . I f ' m a t h e m a t i c a l l y i m p o s s i b l e ' m e a n t precisely the
s a m e as ' c o n t r a d i c t o r y ' , the phra.se ' c o n t r a d i c t o i y a n d so m a t h e m a t i c a l l y
i m p o s s i b l e ' w o u l d be t a u t o l o g o i i s — ' c o n t r a d i c t o r y a n d so c o n t r a d i c t o i y ' .
B u t this w i l l n o t d o : to say only, ' T h i s s u p p o s i l i o n leads o n e i n t o c o n t r a -
d i c t i o n s or, to use a n o t h e r e q u i v a l e n t p h r a s e , is i m | K ) s s i b l e ' , is l o r o b the
i d e a o f m a l h e m a l i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i l y o f a c r u c i a l p a n o f its f o r c é , for ¡I fails
to d r a w Üie i ) r o p e r m o r a l — i l leaves the sui)|)osil¡on i m - m l e d out.
E v e n i n m a t h e m a t i c s , t h e r e f o r e , o n e c a n d i s t i n g u i s h the c r i t e r i o n oi
s t a n d a r d by r e f e r e n c e to w h i c h i h e r a t i o n a l square r o o l o f 2 is dismissed as
inqjossible f r o m the f o r c é o f the c o n c l u s i ó n that it « i m p o s s i b l e . T o state
the ¡ j r e s e n c e o f the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s is not thereby to dismiss tlie n o t i o n
as i m p o s s i b l e , t h o u g h f r o m the m a t h e i n a t i c i a n s ' p o i n t o f view this may
be ab.solutely a l l we l e q u i r e i n o r d e r to justify its dismis.sal. O n c e a g a i n ,
i h e forcé o f c a l l i n g the n u m b e r x a n 'im|)ossil)ility' is to dismi.ss i l f r o m
c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d , since we a r e l o dismiss it f r o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n f r o m
the m a l h e m a l i c a l s t a n d p o i n i , the g r o u n d s for d o i n g so have to be o f a
k i n d a p p r o p r i a l e lo m a t h e m a t i c s , e.g. i h e fact that o p e r a t i n g w i t h s u c h
a c o n c e p l i o n leads o n e i n t o c o n t r a d i c t i o n s . C x ) n t r a d i c t o r i n e s s c a n be,
m a t h e m a t i c a l l y s p e a k i n g , a criterion o f impossibility: t h e i m p l i e d Jorre o r
moral o f s u c h a n impossibility is that the n o t i o n c a n have n o place i n
subse<)iunl m a t h e m a t i c a l a r g u m e n i s .
T o insist o n this d i s t i n c t i o n i n the case o f m a l l i e m a t í c a l impossibility
m a y s e e m to be m e r e hair-splitting. Mathematically, t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s
o f d i e d i s i i n c t i o n may be negligible: p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y , however, they are
c o n s i d e r a b l e , cspecially w h e n o n e goes o n (as we s h a l l d o i n a later e.ssay)
to m a k e tlie p a r a l l e l d i s ü n c t i o n i n t h e case o f ' l o g i c a l i m p o s s i b i l i t y ' . F o r
this d i s t i n c t i o n between ' f o r c é ' a n d ' c r i t e r i a ' as a p p l i e d lo m o d a l terms
is a n e a r - r e l a l i o n to d i s t i n c t i o n s w h i c h have r e c e n t l y b e e n m a d e i n o t h e r
fields w i t h g r e a t f ) h i l o s o p h i c a l p r o ñ t .
L e t US l o o k at this ])arallel for a m o m e n t . P h i l o s o p h e r s s t u d y i n g the
g e n e r a l use o f evaluative t e r m s have a r g u e d as foUows:
A word like ' g o o d ' can be ii.sed equally o f a n a p p l c 01 an agent or an action, of
a volley i i i tennis, a v a c m n i M i e a n e r 01 a Van Gogh: in each ca.se, lo cali t h e l i i i i l
or the person or the stioke or the painting ' g o o d ' is lo commend it, a n d to hold
it out as being i n .some respect a piai.seworthy, admirable 01 efficient niember
of its class—the word 'good' is accordingly delined niost accuiately as 'the n i o s t
Forre and Crileria
general a<ljectlve of comniendalion'. Bul becaiise ihe word is so general, the
lliiiigs we ap|)eal lo in order lo justily coinnicnding diireieiu kinds of thing as
'gootl' will tlieniselves be very different. A morally-good action, a domestically-
good vaciiiim-cleanei and a pomiculliiially-good a|)ple all come up lo standard,
biit the standards they all come up to will be difTeienl—indeed, incomparable.
So one can distinguish bclween the commendaloiy forcé of labelling a thing as
'good', and the criteria by reference to which we justify a commendation.
O u r o w n d i s c u s s i o n has l e d us l o a p o s i t i o n w h i c h is, i n eífect, only a
special case o f this m o r e g e n e r a l o n e . F o r the p a t t e r n is the s a m e w h e t h e r
the things we a r e g r a d i n g o r assessing o r c r i f i c i s i n g a r e , o n i h e o n e h a n d ,
apples o r a c i i o n s o r paintiiigs or, o n the o d i e r , a r g u m e i i l s a n d c o n c l u -
sions. I n e i t h e r case we are c o n c e r n e d w i t h j u d g i n g o r e v a l u a t i n g , a n d
d i s t i n c t i o n s w h i c h have p r o v e d fruitful i n e l h i c s a n d aesthetics w i l l d o so
again w h e n a j j p l i e d lo the c r i t i c i s m o f a r g u m e n i s . W i t h ' i n q ) o s s i b l e ' as
w i ü i ' g o o d ' : the use o f the t e r m has a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r c é , o f c o m i n e i i d i n g
i n o n e case, o f r e j e c t i n g i n the o t h e r ; to c o m m e n d a n a p j i l e o r a n a c t i o n
is o n e t h i n g , to give y o u r reasons for c o m m e n d i n g it is a n o t h e r ; to reject
a suggestion as u n t e n a b l e is o n e t h i n g , to give y o u r reasons for r e j e c t i n g
it is a n o t h e r , h o w e v e r c o g e n t a n d r e l e v a n t these reasons may be.
W h a t is i h e v i r t u e o f s u c h d i s l i n c ü o n s ? I f we i g i u ) r e t h e m i n e l h i c s ,
a n u m b e r o f things may h a | ) i K ' n . WV may, for i n s l a n c e , be l e i n p t e d to
t h i n k i h a l t h e standards w h i c h a t h i n g has to r e a c h i n o r d e r to deserve
c o m m e n d a t i o n a r e a l l we n e e d p o i n t to i n e x p l a i n i n g what is m e a n t by
c a l l i n g it ' g o o d ' . To cali a v a c u u n w l e a n e r good (we may c o n c l u d e ) is
j u s t l o say that il.s efficieucy, i n l e r m s o f cubic-feet-olklust-sucked-in p e r
kilowatt-of-electricity-consimied a n d the l i k e , is w e l l above t h e average for
m a c h i n e s o f this type. ( T h i s is l i k e t h i n k i n g t h a l tlu- phrase ' m a t h e m a t i -
cally i m p o s s i b l e ' j u s t means ' i n v o l v i n g sell-c:ontradiclions' a n d n o m o r e . )
S i u h a view, however, lea<ls to u n i K K e s s a i y p a r a d o x c s . F"or it may n o w
s e e m that the t e r m s o f c o m m e n d a t i o n a n d c o n d e m n a t i o n i n w h i c h we
so f r e í j u e n d y e x p r e s s o u r j u d g e m e n i s o f v a l u é have as m a n y m e a n i n g s as
t h e r e are d i l l e r e n l sorts o f t h i n g l o e v a l ú a t e , a n d this is a v e i y u n w e l c o m e
suggestion. A s a c o u n t e r to this, it has to be r e c o g n i s e d that the forre oí
c o m m e n d i n g s o m e t h i n g as ' g o o d ' o r c o n d e n m i n g it as ' b a d ' r e m a i n s
the s a m e , w h a t e v e r sort o f i h i n g i l may be, even i h o i i g h the c r i t e r i a for
j u d g i n g o r assessing the m e i i t s o f different k i n d s a r e very v a r i a b l e .
B u l this is n o t the o n l y way i n w h i c h we m a y be l e d astray, o r i n d e e d the
most serious way. H a v i n g r e c o g n i s e d t h a l , i n the m e a n i n g o f evaluafive
l e r m s , a m u l ü p l i c i t y o f c r i l e r i a are l i n k e d together by a c o n u n o n f o r c é ,
a n d that to e v a l ú a t e s o m e t h i n g n o r m a l l y involves b o t h g r a d i n g it i n a n
 Fii'lds of Argument and Modals
o i d c i (>( ( o m i n e n d a b i l i t y a n d also r c f c r r i n g to the c r i t e r i a a p p r o p r i a t e
(o i h i n g s o f its k i n d , we may nevertheless wish to take a f n r t h e r step. For,
b e i n g j ) r e o c c n p i e c l with s o m e p a r t i c u l a r tyj)e o f e v a l u a t i o n , we may c o m e
to í e e l that o n e p a r t i c u l a r set o f c r i t e r i a has a imicpie i m p o r t a n c e , a n d
a c c o r d i n g l y be t e m p t e d to p i c k o n the c r i t e r i a p r o p e r for the assessment
o f things o f s o m e o n e sort as the p r o p e r o r u n i q i i e standards o f merit for
all sorts o f i h i n g , so d i s m i s s i n g a l l o t h e r c r i t e i i a e i t h e r as m i s c o n c e i v e d o r
as u n i m p o r t a n t . O n e may suspect that s o m e t h i n g o f this k i n d h a p p e n e d
to the U t i l i t a r i a n s , w h o w e r e so w h o l e - l i e a r t e d an<l s i n g l e - m i n d e d i n t h e i r
c o n c e r n l o r q u e s l i o n s o f legislation a n d social a c t i o n that they c a m e
to feel that there was o n l y o n e p r o b l e m w h e n e v a l u a t i n g things o f all
k i n d s : a l l o n e h a d to d o was d e t e r m i n e the consequences w h i c h c o u l d be
associated w i t h o r expi-cted f r o m things o f any k i n d .
Ihe dang<is o f such single-mindedness become apparent when
p h i l o s o p h e r s o f this k i n d begin to generalise: p r e o c c i q i i e d as they are w i l h
s o m e o n e type o f v a l u a t i o n , they b l i n d themselves to the special p r o b l e m s
i n v o l v e d i n o l h e r sorl.s—lo a l l the diflicidties o f aesthelic j u d g e m e n i , a n d
to m a n y of l l u - i s s i u s facing o n e i n the c o i u s e o f o n e ' s m o r a l life. T h e r e
a i e m a n y sorts o f assessment a n d g r a d i n g besides the a p p r a i s a l o f legisla-
tive p r o g r a n u u e s a n d social r e f o r m s , a n d standards w h i c h m a y be w h o l l y
a p p r o p r i a t e w h e n j u d g i n g i h e w o r i h i n e s s o f a B i l l before P a r l i a m e n t c a n
be m i s l e a d i n g o r out-ol-place w h e n we are c o n c e r i u ' d w i t h a p a i n t i n g , a n
a|)ple o r even o u r i n d i v i d u a l m o r a l q u a n d a r i e s .
The sanu- d a n g e r s < a n arise over a r g u n i e n i s . The use o f a n u x l a l t e r m
like ' c a n n o l ' i n c o n n e c t i o n with argunu-nts f r o m q u i t e different fields
involves, as we have s e e n , a c e r t a i n c o m m o n f o r c é , l i k e the c o m m o n
forcé recognisable i n a wide r a n g e o f uses o f the w o r d ' g o o d ' . Yet the
c r i l e r i a to be i n v o k e d to justify r u l i n g out c o n c l u s i o n s o f different tyjies
are very d i f f e r e n l . I l e r e , as i n e l h i c s , two c o n c l u s i o n s a r e t e m p t i n g , b o l h
o f w h i c h n n i s l be avoided. O n the o n e h a n d , it will be w r o n g to say, m e r e l y
o n a c c o u n l o f i h i s v a r i a l i o n i n c r i l e r i a , that the w o r d ' c a n n o t ' m e a n s (piite
d i f f e r e n l l l i i n g s w h e n it figures i n dilTerent sorts o f c o n c l u s i o n s : not for
nothing are physicai, linguistic, m o r a l a n d conceptual 'cannots' linked
by the use o f a c o m m o n t e r m . I l w i l l also IK- a m i s l a k e , a n d a m o r e serious
o n e , l o p i c k o n s o m e o n e c r i t e r i o n o f impossibility a n d to elévate it i n t o a
position o f unicpie p l i i l o s o | ) l i i c a l i m p o r t a n c e . Yet i n the history o f recent
p h i l o s o p h y b o l h o f these c o n c l u s i o n s have b e e n i n f l u e n t i a l — t h e latler, I
shall a r g ü e , disastrously so.
Before r e l u r n i n g to o u r m a i i i cpieslion, there is o n e f u r t h e r c a u t i o n .
We have already, for the p u i p o s e s o f this present investigation, r e n o u n c e d
The l'ield-Depmdence of Our Standards 33
i h e use o f the w o r d ' l o g i c a l ' ; it w i l l be as well l o r e n o i i n c e n o w the use
of the w o r d ' m e a n i n g ' a n d its associates also. F o r i h e d i s t i n c t i o n w h i c h
we have h e r e d r a w n between forcé a n d c r i t e r i a is o n e w h i c h cuts across
i h e c o m m o n use o f the l e n n ' m e a n i n g ' , a n d we n e e d , for o u r i ) i e s e n l
|)mposes, to o p é r a t e w i t h finer d i s t i n c t i o n s t h a n the t e n i i ' m e a n i n g ' or-
d i n a r i l y allows o n e to draw. It is not e n o u g h l o speak about the m e a n i n g
o r use o f s u c h terms as ' g o o d ' o r ' i m p o s s i b l e ' as t h o u g h il w e r e a n i n d i -
visible u n i t : i h e use o f s u c h l e r m s has a n u m b e r o f d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e aspects,
for lwo o f w h i c h we have i n l r o d u c e d the words ' f o r c é ' a n d ' c r i l e r i a ' .
U n t i l we m a k e this d i s t i n c t i o n , the false trails o f w h i c h I have s j i o k e n
will r e m a i n t e m p t i n g , for, w h e n we are asked w h e t h e r the d i í í e r e n c e s
between a l l the v a r i e d uses o f i h e w o r d s ' g o o d ' , ' c a n n o l ' a n d 'possible'
do o r d o not a i n o u n t to differences i n m e a n i n g , we shall inevitahly find
oiuselves p i i l l e d i n of)|)osite d i r e c t i o n s . I f we say thftt there rtrífdifferences
in m e a n i n g , we seem c o n u n i t l e d to m a k i n g as m a n y d i f f e r e n l e n t r i e s i n
o u r d i c t i o n a r i e s as t h e r e are sorts o f possibility o r impossibility o r m e r i t —
i n d e e d , as m a n y e n t r i e s as i h e r e are different k i n d s o f t h i n g to be jiossible
o r inipossible o r g o o d — a r i d i c u l o u s c o n c l u s i ó n , (^n the o l h e r h a n d , lo
say that there is í í o d i f f e r e i u e i n m e a n i n g between diese v a r i e d uses sug-
gesis that we c a n expect to f m d o u r standards o f goodncss o r {)ossihilily
o r inq>ossibility p r o v i n g f i e l d - i n v a r i a u l , a n d i h i s c o n c l u s i ó n is n o Ix-lter.
11, however, we m a k e the f u r t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n between the forcé o f assess-
luents a n d the c r i t e r i a o r s l a n d a r d s a p p l i c a b l e i n the c o u r s e o f t h e m ,
we c a n avoid giving a n y c r u d e 'yes o r n o ' answer to the coarse-grained
(piestion, ' A r e the m e a n i n g s the same o r different?' A s we shif t f r o m o n e
use lo a n o t h e r , the c r i l e r i a may c h a n g e w h i l e the f o r c é r e m a i n s the same:
w h e t h e r o r n o we d e c i d e l o cali this a c h a n g e o f m e a n i n g w i l l be a m a t t e r
o f c o m p a r a l ive i n d i f f e r e i i c e .
T h e Field-Dependence o f O u r Standards
We are now i n a position to see the answer l o o u r first n i a j o r q u e s t i o n .
W h e n o n e seis o u t a n d crilicises a r g i i m e n l s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s i n differ-
ent fields, we a s k e d , what features o f the p r o c e d u r e we a d o p i a n d o f
ihe concepts we e m p l o y w i l l be íield-invariant, a n d what features will be
l i i l d - d e p e n d e n i ? F o r iinpo.ssibilities a n d i i n j ) r o p r i e t i e s , we saw, t l u ' a n -
swer was c l e a r e n o u g h . T h e forceoí the c o n c l u s i ó n ' I l c a n n o t be the case
i h a t . . . ' o r ' . . . is iinpo.ssible' is the s a m e regardless o f fields: the crileria
O I sorts o f g r o u n d r e q u i r e d t o j u s ü f y s u c h a c o n c l u s i ó n vary f r o m field to
Iield. I n any field, the c o n c l u s i o n s that ' c a n n o t ' be the case a r e those we
 l'ields of Argument and Modals
aií- <)l)ligc(l lo r u l e o u t — w h e t h e r they are c o n c e r n e d wiüi lifting a I o n
s i n g l e - h a n d e d , t i i r n i n g one's son away without a s h i l l i n g , o r o p e r a t i n g
m a l h e i n a t i c a l l y w i t h a r a t i o n a l square root o f 2: o n the o t h e r h a n d , the
c r i t e r i a o f physiological i n c a p a c i t y a r e o n e t h i n g , standards o f m o r a l i n -
admissihility are a n o t h e r , a n d those o f m a t h e m a t i c a l impossibility a d i i r d .
We must n o w c h e c k m o r e brieíly Uiat i n this respect the terms ' c a i m o t '
a n d ' i n q j o s s i b l e ' are lypical o f m o d a l terms generally, ancl that w h a l is
true o f these sainples is true like-wise o f o t h e r m o d a l t e n n s a n d t e n n s o f
logical assessment.
L e í US take a cpiick look at i h e n o t i o n o f 'possibility'. W h a t is meant by
c a l l i n g s o m e t h i n g a possibility, w h e d i e r m a t h e m a t i c a l o r other? F r o m the
s t a n d j j o i n t o f m a t h e m a t i c s , we m a y b e j u s t i f i e d i n t r e a t i n g s o m e n o t i o n as
a i>ossibility s i m p l y i n the a b s e n c e o f any d e m o n s i r a b l e c o n t r a d i c t i o n —
this is the converse o f c o n l r a d i c t o r i n e s s , the m a t h e m a t i c a l c r i t e r i o n o f i m -
possibility. I n most cases, however, t o c a l l s o m e t h i n g a possibility is t o c l a i n i
m u c h m o r e l l i a i i this. F o r instance the statement, ' D w i g h t D . E i s e n h o w e r
w i l l be s e l e c l e d lo i e | j r e s e n l the U . S . A . i n the Davis í a q ) m a t c h against
A u s t r a l i a ' , c e r t a i n l y m a k e s sense, a n d involves o n e i n n o d e m o n s t r a b l e
c o n t r a d i c t i o n s . Yet n o b o d y w o i d d say tiiat Presiclent F i s e i d i o w e r was a
possible m e m b e r o f the team: n o o n e , that is, w o u l d i h i i i k o f i n i r o d u c i i i g
his ñ a m e for c o n s i t l e r a l i o i i w h e n g e n u i n e l y discussing ils c o m p o s i l i o n .
Vm lo p u l h i m foi-ward as a possiliility w o u l d be lo i m p l y that he a l any
rate deserved o u r a t t e n l i o n — t h a l it was necessary, at the very l e a s l , lo
state a r g u m e n t s against the view l l i a t he w o u l d be s e l e c l e d — w h e r e a s , i n
fact, i f his ñ a m e were i n l r o d u c e d i n t o a serious discussion o f i h e q u e s t i o n ,
il w o u l d be dismissed n o t w i t h a n a r g u m e n t b u l w i l h a l a u g h , since o n e
( a n n o l even I x ' g i n lo ( o n s i d e r the c h a n c e s o f a m a n w h o has effectively
n o l e n n i s - p l a y i n g form to be l a k e n into a c c o u n l .
I n o r d e r for a suggestion lo be a 'possibility' i n any c o n l e x t , therefore,
it musí 'have what it takes' i n o r d e r to be e n t i t l e d to g e n i i i n e considera-
l i o n in that contexl. lo say, i n any field, 'Such-and-such is a possible answer
to oin- q u e s f i o n ' , is to say i h a l , b e a r i n g i n i n i n d the n a t u r e o f the p r o l >
I c m c o n c e r n e d , such-and-such a n a n s w e r desei'ves to be c o n s i d e r e d . T h i s
n u u h o f the m e a n i n g o f the t e r m 'possible' is field-invariant. The crileria
o l possibility, 011 the o t h e r h a n d , a r e field-dependeni, like the c r i t e r i a
o f impossibility a n d goodness. T h e things we m u s t p o i n t to i n s h o w i n g
that s o m e t h i n g is possible will d e p e n d eiUirely o n w h e t h e r we a r e c o n -
c e r n e d with a p r o b l e m i n puro m a t h e m a t i c s , a p r o b l e m o f team-selecfion,
a [ j r o b l e m i n aesthetics, o r what; a n d features w h i c h m a k e s o m e l h i n g a
pos.sibility f r o m o n e standpoint w i l l be totally i r r e l e v a n i f r o m another.
Tile Field-Dependence ofOnr Standards 35
I h e f o r m t h a l m a k e s a m a n a possibility for the Davis C u p is o n e t h i n g ; ;
i h e e x p l a n a t o i y p o w e r that m a k e s Professor F r ó h l i c h ' s i h e o i y a possi-
ble e x p l a n a t i o n o f super-conductivity is a n o d i e r ; the features o f P i e r o ' s
p a i n ü n g o f the R e s u r r e c t i o n w h i c h m a k e it possibly the finest |)icture
ever p a i n t e d are a t h i r d ; a n d there is n o q u e s t i o n o f w e i g l i i n g these pos-
sibilitics all i n the same scale. T h e y are a l l pfissibilities o f i h e i r k i n d s , all
(ihat is) suggestions e i U i t i e d to r c s p e c l f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n any serious
discussion o f the p r o b l e m s to w h i c h they a r e relevant; b u t , because they
are possibilities f)f different k i n d s , the standards by whi( h t h e i r c l a i m s to
o u r a t l e n l i o n are j u d g e d will vary f r o m case to case.
This is n o l lo d e n y that possibilides o f different k i n d s c a n be c o m p a r e d
in any way. I n every field o f a r g i m i e n t , t h e r e c a n be s o m e very s t r o n g
()ossibililies, o t h e r m o r e o r less serious o n e s , a n d o t h e r s again w h i c h are
m o r e a n d m o r e r e m ó t e ; a n d , i n c o m p a r i n g possibilities f r o m different
lields, we c a n set against e a c h o t h e r the c o m p a r a t i v e degrees o f strength
o r remoteness w h i c h e a c h possibility has i n its o w n field. T h i s c a n n o t
n o r m a l l y be d o n e at a l l p r e c i s e l y — t h e r e a r e not i n g e n e r a l exact measures
ol 'degree o f p o s s i b i l i t y ' — y e l s o m e sort o f r o u g h c o m p a r i s o n is o p e n lo
US, a n d i n d e e d f a m i l i a r e n o u g h . A hostile physicist m i g h t say, ' F r ó h l i c h ' s
i l i e o r y is n o m o r e a possible t h e o i y o f super-conductivity i h a n Dwight D .
K i s e n h o w e r is a |)ossible m e m b e r o f d i e U . S . Davis VM\) l i - a m ' , a n d this
w o u l d be, I take it, a c o n t e m p t u o u s way o f d i s m i s s i n g F r ó h l i c h ' s t h e o r y
from c o n s i d e r a ü o n ; b u t to say s u c h a t h i n g w i l l not he to i m p l y that
o n e c a n m e a s u r e F r ó h l i c h ' s t h e o i y a n d Dwight D . K i s e n h o w e r against
.1 c o m m o n s t a n d a r d . Rather, it will be lo sel against o n e a n o t h e r the
degrees to w h i c h e a c h o f t h e m c o m e s u p to thc standards o f possibility
appro|)riate to things o f the k i n d i n (|uestion.
' C i m ' a n d 'possible' are, accordingly, l i k e ' c a n n o l ' a n d ' i m p o s s i b l e ' i n
having a field-invariant forcé a n d í i e l d - d e p e n d e n t standards. T h i s result
( a n be g e n e r a l i s e d : a l l the canons for the c r i t i c i s m a n d assessment o f
i r g u m e n t s , I c o n c l u d e , are i n |)racüce field-dependenl, while all our
l e r m s o f a.ssessmenl are field-invaiiant i n their/arce. W e c a n ask, ' H o w
strong a case c a n be m a d e out?'—^whether for e x p e c ü n g B u d g e Patty to
be a m e m b e r o f the U . S . Davis C u p t e a m , o r for a c c e p t i n g S i r K e n n e t h
(:lark's reassessnient o f P i e r o d e l l a FYancesca, o r for a d o p t i n g FYóhlich's
llieory o f s u p e r - c o n d u c t i v i t y — a n d the q u e s ü o n we ask w i l l be how s t r o n g
<a( h cíise is w h e n tested against its o w n a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d . W e m a y
<\eu ask, i f we please, how i h e three cases c o m p a r e i n s t r e n g t h , a n d
p r o d u c e a n o r d e r o f m e r i t , d e c i d i n g (say) Utat d i e case for s c l e c t i n g Patty
is watertight, the case for F r ó h l i c h ' s t h e o i y s t r o n g b u t o n l y p r o v i s i o n a l .
 Fields of Argument and Modals
a n d i l i f ( a s e l o r I'iero s o m e w h a t e x a g g e r a t e d a n d d e p e n d e n t u p o n a
n u n d ) c r o f debatable matters o f taste. ( I n saying this I d o not i m p l y that
all aesthelic a r g u m e n t s are looser, o r m o r e d e p e n d e n i o n matters o f
taste, t h a n «//scientific o r p i e d i c l i v e a r g u m e n t s . ) B u t i n d o i n g this we
are not a s k i n g h o w far the cases for the three c o n c l u s i o n s m e a s u r e u p to
a c o m m o n s t a n d a r d : only, how far e a c h o f i h e m c o m e s u p to the standards
a p p r o p r i a l e l o things o f ils k i n d . T h e f o r m o f q u e s t i o n , T I o w strong is
the ( a s e ? ' , has i h e same forcé o r i m p l i c a t i o n s e a c h ü m e : the standards
we w o r k w i t h i n l l u - i h i e e cases a r e different.
Questions for the A g e n d a , ;
T h i s result m a y seem a r a t h e r s l e n d e r o u t c o m e for so l a b o r i o u s a n i n q u l i y
Il m a y also seem a trille obvious; a n d certaiidy we must avoid exagger-
a l i n g e i t h e r ils m a g n i l u d e o r ils i m m e d i a l e p h i l o s o p h i c a l i n q j o r l a n c e .
N e v e r t h e l e s s , i f we take ils i m p l i c a t i o n s seiiously, we s h a l l see that it does
forcé o n us c e r t a i n cpiesiions w h i c h are o f u n d o u b t e d i m { ) o r t a n c e for
philosophy, a n d p a r l i c u l a i i y for o u r i m d e r s t a n d i n g o f the scope o f for-
m a l logic. I n this last parí o f the present essay, k l m e indícate what these
q u e s l i o n s a r e , since they w i l l be h i g h o n o u r a g e n d a i n subsequent essays.
T o b(-giii w i l h , we musí ask: are l l u - d i l f e r e n c e s betwt-en the standards
we e m p l o y i n d i l l e r e n l lields irreduriblfi Must tlu- i h i n g s w h i c h , i n p i a c -
l i c e , m a k e a c o n c l u s i ó n possible, ¡ j r o b a b l e , o r c e r t a i n — f ) r a n a r g u m e n t
sliaky, s t r o n g o r c o n d u s i v e — v a r y as we inove f r o m o n e fu-ld o f a r g u m e n l
l o a n o t h e r ? T h i s , o n e might t h i n k , was not a n unavoidabh- l e a t u n - o f
the ways i n w h i c h we asse.ss a n d criticis<- a i g i i u u - n l s ; a n d c e r t a i n l y it is a
fealure w i t h w h i c h profcssional logicians have b e e n u n w i l l i n g to c o m e
l o U-rins. .So far from a c c e p i i n g i l , tlu-y have always h o p e d that it w o u l d
|)rov(- possible lo disjilay a r g u m e n t s f r o m different fields i n a c o m m o n
f o r m , a i u l to criücise a r g m n e n t s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s as w e a k , s t r o n g o r c o n -
clusiví-, possible, p r o b a b l e o r c e r t a i n , by ap|)eal to a single, u n i v e r s a l s(-l
o f criu-ria a p p l i c a b l e i n all fields o f a r g u m e n t a l i k e . Q u i t e consistently, lo-
gicians ( a n a d m i i t h a l , i n a c t u a l p r a c l i c e , we do not e m p l o y any u n i v e r s a l
battery o f c r i t e r i a , a n d yet m a i n t a i n u n a b a t e d t h e i r a m b i ü o n to discovei
a n d f o r m ú l a t e — t h e o r e t i c a l l y , i f n o m o r e — s u c h a set o f u n i v e r s a l stan-
dards: the a c t u a l d i í í e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the c r i t e r i a we e n q j l o y i n o n e field
o r a n o t h e r they w i l l r e g a r d , n o t as s o m e t h i n g i n e v i t a b l e a n d i r r e d u c i b l e ,
b u t r a t h e r as a c h a l l e n g e . A c k n o w l e d g i n g these differences for w h a t they
a r e , they m a y at the same l i m e m a k e i l i h e i r a i m to d e v e l o p m e t h o d s o f as-
sessment m o r e g e n e r a l a i u l standards o f j i i d g e i n e n t m o r e u n i v e r s a l t h a n
Questions for the Agenda 37
ihose w h i c h we c u s t o m a r i l y e m p l o y i n tlu- practical c r i t i c i s m o f everyday
arguments.
This is o n l y the first hint o f a w i d e r divergence w h i c h we s h a l l find our-
selves h a v i n g to face m o r e a n d m o r e as we ¡ j i o c e e d , between the altitudes
a n d m e t h o d s o f profcssional l o g i c i a n s a n d those o f eveiyday arguers. A t
the monu-nt there is n o t h i n g about it that leads lo any serious disquiet.
T h e l o g i c i a n s ' a m b i l i o n lo i ) r o d u c e a syst(-m o f logic f i e l d - i n v a r i a n l both
in the forms i l employs a n d i n the c r i t e r i a i l seis out for the c r i t i c i s m o f
argunu-nis is al Iirsl sight a w h o l l y reasonable a m b i ü o n : o n e w o u l d not
easily h i l o n any i m m e d i a l e reason for dismissing i l as u n r e a l i s a b l e . A l l
we c a n do at ihis slage, therefore, is to state the geiu-ral q u e s t i o n w h i c h
is raised for logic by tJie a d o p ü o n o f this p r o g r a m n u - : it is the q u e s t i o n ,
' H o w far is a general logic possible?' I n o t h e r w o r d s , c a n o n e h o p e , e v e n
as a inatu-r o f t h e o i y a l o n e , to set out a n d cridcise a r g u n u í u t s i n s u c h a
way thal i h e f o r m i n w h i c h o n e seis out the argtmients a i u l the standards
by a p p e a l to w h i c h o n e criücises t h e m a r e both field-invariant?
A s e c o n d (pu-stion o f g e n e r a l i m | } o r t a n c e for |)hilosophy arises out
of o u r i i u p i i i y in the following way. P h i l o s o p h e r s have often h e l d that
a r g u m e n t s i n s o m e fields o f i n q u i i y a r e i n t r i n s i c a l l y m o r e o p e n to r a t i o n a l
assessment t h a n those i n others: questions o f m a t h e m a t i c s a n d tpiesfions
about evi-iyday matters o f fací, for i n s l a n c e , have b e e n c o n s i d e r e d by
m a n y to have a c e r l a i n p r i o r i l y i n logic over (say) matters o f law, m o r á i s
o r aesthetics. T h e c o u r t o f r e a s o n , it has b e e n suggested, has o n l y a l i i n i l e d
j i i r i s d i c l i o n , a n d is n o l c o m p e t e n t to a d j i i d i c a l e o n questions o f a l l k i n d s .
I n o u r iiu|uiry, n o c o n t r a s t ( j f this s o n has so far l u r n e d u p : t h e r e is, for a l l
thal we have s e e n , a c o m p l e t e p a r a l l e l i s m Ixílween a r g u m e n t s i n a l l these
different fields, a n d no g r o u n d s a r e yet e v i d e n t for a c c o r d i n g p r i o r i t y
to i n a l l u - m a t i c a l a n d s i m i l a r m a l K r s . I n c o n s i d e r i n g , for e x a m p l e , the
differenl g r o u n d s o n w h i c h s o m e l h i n g may have to be r u l e d out i n the
course o f a n a r g u m e n t , we f o u n d p l e n t y o f differences o n g o i n g f r o m o n e
field to a n o l l u - i , but n o t h i n g w h i c h l e d us lo c o n c l u d e that a n y special
field o f a r g u m e n t was i n t r i n s i c a l l y n o n - r a ñ o n a l , o r t h a l the c o u r t o f reason
was s o m e h o w n o t c o m p e t e n t to p r o i u n i n c e u p o n its p r o b l e m s . So the
q u e s t i o n arises, j u s t what lies b e h i n d the desire o f m a n y p h i l o s o p h e r s
lo d r a w d i s t i n c t i o n s o f this p a r t i c u l a r k i n d between diffi-reni fields o f
arguments.
Probably we a l l have some syinpathy for this p h i l o s o p h i c a l d o c t r i n e . I f
we look again at i h e batch o f s a m p l e c o n c l u s i o n s r u l e d out w i l h a ' c a n n o t '
f r o m a r g u m e n t s i n different fields, we m a y ( p i i l e n a t u r a l l y feel, to begin
w i d i , that s o m e o f tlie e x a i n p l e s have m o r e right to be l a b e l l e d w i t h this
48 Fidds of Argtmwnl and Modals
w o r d l l i a n o t h e r s . T h a t o n e ' c a n n o l ' lift a ton s i n g l e - h a n d e d , o r get ten
t h o u s a n d p e o p l e i n t o the T o w n H a l l ; o r a g a i n , that o n e ' c a n n o t ' have a
m a l e sister—these sorts o f inqjossibility, over w h i c h t r y i n g is b o u n d to be
v a i n e v e n w h e i e to speak o f t r y i n g is itself i n t e l l i g i b l e , d o c e r l a i n l y seem
to U S to be m o r e r e a l , m o r e a u t h e n ü c , t h a n some o f the o t h e r e x a m p l e s
at w h i c h we l o o k e d . T h e y o v e r s h a d o w especially those e x a m p l e s i n w h i c h
the g r o u n d s for r u l i n g out a c o n c l u s i ó n are o n l y g r o u n d s o f illegalily o r
i i n m o r a l i t y — i h o i i g h why, we may al o n c e ask, does o n e feel i n c l i n e d to
say,'Ow(v g r o u n d s o f illegalily o r i i n m o r a l i t y ' ?
T h e { p u s t i o n now has to be a s k e d , w h e t h e r t h e r e is a n y t h i n g m o r e
to this d i f f e r e n c e t h a n a feeling o f aulhenticity. H a s this feeling o f a u -
thenticity, w h i c h attaches to the impossibilities o f physicai incapacity a n d
l i n g u i s t i c i n c o h e r e n c e , b u t n o t to s u c h things as m o r a l i m p r o p r i e t y , any-
I h i n g m o r e in the way o f a b a c k i n g t h a n a psychological o n e ? C a n i l really
be said i h a l t h e r e is any d i f f e r e n c e , f r o m the p o i n t o f view o f logic, be-
tween these lwo d a s s e s o f i n q u i r y ; o r is the difference between t h e m n o
m o r e t h a n we have so far recognised?
O r l a i n l v , o n l o o k i n g at i h e different c i r c u m s i a n c e s i n w h i c h we use
m o d a l l e r m s s u c h as ' c a n n o t ' , we d o find d i f f e r e n c e s — t h e r e may be m a n y
reasons, i n d e e d m a n y k i n d s o f r e a s o n , for s t o p p i n g a n d r e c o n s i d e r i n g
s o m e l h i n g o n e is d o i n g , about to d o , o r t h i n k i n g o f d o i n g ; o r else for
c a l l i n g o n s o m e o n e else to stop a n d t h i n k i n the same way. T h e fact t h a l
a n a c t i o n w o u l d be illegal is o n e perfectly g o o d reason for r e c o n s i d e r i n g
it, the fací that it w o u l d be u n j u d i c i a l is i n some c i r c u m s i a n c e s a s e c o n d ,
the k n o w l e d g e t h a l i h e v e i y a t l e m p l w o u l d inevilably be v a i n is a i h i r d
g o o d reason for l i e s i l a l i o n , t h a l i l w o u l d involve a l i n g u i s t i c solecism o r
a n u n g r a m m a l i c a l u t t e r a n c e are two m o r e , a n d so o n . W h a t is not at firsi
a|)[)arenl is a n y logical g r o u n d for saying that c e r t a i n o f these sorts ol
reason a n - really reasons, w h i l e o t h e r s are not. L o g i c a l l y s p e a k i n g , the
cases a p p e a r o n a par.
L o g i c a l l y s|}eaking, die p e n a l t i e s a m a n risks by i g n o r i n g different i m -
possibilities a n d i m p r o p r i e t i e s are also at first sight e n t i r e l y o n a par: by
i g n o r i n g a legal provisión o n e m u s a risk o f p r o s e c u t i o n , by i g n o r i n g the
m i e s o f j u d i c i a l p r o c e d u r e that o f p u b l i c o u t c r y o r a successful a p p e a l , by
i g n o r i n g o n e ' s physicai capacities the risk o f d i s a p p o i n t m e n t , by ignor-
i n g the n e e d to respect the c o n v e n t i o i i s o f language i n o n e ' s utterances
that o f n o t b e i n g u n d e r s t o o d . T h e g r o u n d s , offences a n d s a n c l i o n s i n
q u e s t i o n m a y n o t be the same i n different fields, but it is h a r d to see f r o m
lilis i n q u i i y a l o n e w h y some fields n e e d be m o r e ' l o g i c a l ' o r ' r a d o n a l '
t h a n o t h e r s . S o h e r e is o n e g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n o f u n d o u b t e d p h i l o s o p h i c a l
Questions for the Agenda 39
i m p o r t a n c e , w h i c h we m u s t a d d to o u r a g e n d a for later d i s c u s s i o n : what
sort o f p r i o r i t y i n logic, i f any, c a n m a t t e r s o f fact (say) c l a i n i over s u c h
ihiiigs as matters o f moráis?
This i n q u i r y has, I h o p e , i l l u s t r a t e d o n e t h i n g : namely, the virtues
ol the p a r a l l e l between p r o c e d u r e s o f r a t i o n a l assessmeni a n d legal
p r o c e d u r e s — w h a t I c a l l e d e a r l i e r t h e j u r i s p n i d e i i ü a l aiialogy. I n d e c i d i n g
both quesfions o f law a n d questions about l l i e soundness o f a r g u m e n t s
O I the g r o u n d e d i i e s s o f c o n c l u s i o n s , c e r t a i n f u n d a m e n t a l i ) r o c e d i i r e s
are t a k e n for g r a n t e d . T h e uses we m a k e o f terms o f m o d a l cpialifica-
l i o n , w h i c h we have e x a m i n e d at s o m e l e n g d i i n the j)resent essay, are
only o n e i l l u s t r a t i o n o f this. B u t t h e r e is o n e f u r t h e r pt)ssibility that the
.malogy suggests, w h i c h we have n o t yet faced explicitly. A l t h o u g h i n the
( o i i d i i c t o f law-cases o f a l l k i n d s the p r o c e d u r e s o b s e r v e d s h a r e c e r t a i n
c o m m o n features, t h e r e are some respects i n w h i c h they w i l l be f o u n d to
vaiy: the c o i i d u c t o f a civil case, for i n s t a n c e , w i l l n o t be j x u a l l e l i n e v e i y
single featiire to that o f a c r i m i n a l case. N o w we m u s t b e a r it i n m i n d
ihat s i m i l a r differences may be f o u n d i n the case o f r a d o n a l p r o c e d u r e s
aisf). It m a y l i i n i out, for instance, not o n l y ihat the sorts o f g r o u n d s to
w h i c h we p o i n t i n siip|)ort o f c o n c l u s i o n s i n diífereiit fields are different,
but also that the ways i n w h i c h these g r o u n d s b e a r o n the c o n c l u s i o n s —
i h e ways i n w h i c h they are capable o f s u p p o r t i n g c o n c l u s i o n s — m a y also
vaiy as between fields. T h e r e are i n d i c a l i o n s t h a l this may actually be
so: e.g. the fact t h a l , t h o u g h i n m a n y cases we speak cpiite h a p p i l y o f
o u r g r o u n d s for p u l t i n g f o r w a r d s o m e c o n c l u s i ó n as ' e v i d e n c e ' , i n o t h e r
(ases this t e r m w o u l d be quite o u l o f p l a c e — a m a n w h o p o i i i l e d out the
features o f a p a i n t i n g w h i c h , in his view, m a d e it a iiiaster¡)iece w o u l d
s( arcely be s p o k e n o f as p r e s e n t i n g ' e v i d e n c e ' diat il was a great w o r k
of arl.
T h i s k i n d o f difference n e e d not s u i p r i s e us: after a l l , the d i s t i n c t i o n s
we have m a d e so far are very b r o a d o n e s , a n d a closer e x a m i n a t i o n c o u l d
( c r l a i i i l y b r i n g to l i g l i t f u r t h e r m o r e d e t a i l e d d i s t i n c t i o n s , w h i c h w o u l d
iiiqjrove o u r undei-standing o f the ways i n w h i c h a r g u m e n t s i n different
lields are r e l a l e d . P e r l i a p s at this p o i n t we m i g h t begin to see m o r e clearly
what m a k e s p e o p l e feel that q u e s ü o n s o f m a t h e m a t i c s , m e t e o r o l o g y a n d
i h e like a r e s o m e h o w m o r e r a t i o n a l t h a n — s a y — a e s t h e l i c questions. It
w o u l d be w o r t l i c o n s i d e r i n g , i n d e e d , w h e t h e r tliere are n o t e v e n c r u c i a l
differences b e t w e e n the p r o c e d u r e s a p p r o p r i a t e to aesthetic questions
I >n the o n e h a n d , a n d m o r a l o n e s o n the other. B u t a l l this w o u l d l e a d us
o l f o n to a i K ) t l i e i e q u a l l y l a b o r i o u s investigation, a n d the p r o b l e m m u s t
IM' leíi for a n o t h e r p l a c e .
 Fii'lds of Argument and Modals
II
( ) i i c oí i l u ' q u e s ü o n s o n w h i c h the j u i i s p r u d e n t i a l analogy focuses a i -
t e n l i o n we s l i a l l , however, have to take very seiiously, ancl it w i l l sei^ve as
the starting-point for o u r c e n t r a l essay: that is the q u e s t i o n , what it m e a n s Probability
to speak about form i n logic. I f it is saicl that the validity o f a r g u m e n t s de-
p e n d s u p o n c e r t a i n features o f t h e i r f o r m , w h a t precisely is meant by
this? O n e o f l l i e c h i e f a l t r a c l i o n s o f the m a t h e m a t i c a l a p p r o a c h to logic
has always bcvn i h a t it a l o n e gave a i i y d i i n g l i k e a c l e a r answer to this
q u e s t i o n . I f o n e t h i n k s o f logic as a n e x t e n s i ó n o f psycholcjgy o r sociol-
ogy, the n o t i o n o f logical f o r m r e m a i n s i i n p e n e t r a b l y o b s c u r e — i n d e e d ,
il c a n be e x p l a i n e d o n l y i n l e r m s o f even m o r e m y s l e r i o i i s n o t i o n s , b e i n g
a c c o i i n t e d íbi as a s t r i i c l u r e o f r e l a t i o n s between psychic e n l i l i e s o r social
b e h a v i o u r - p a l t e r n s . - I h e m a t J i e m a t i c a l a p p r o a c h to logic has always <i\y
|)eared to o v e r e ó m e this p a r l i c i i l a r obsciirity, since m a l h e m a t i c i a n s have
l o n g s t u d i e d p a l l e r i i a n d s h a p e i n o l h e r b r a n c h e s o f t h e i r s c i e n c e , a n d the So lerrified was he |iny eldest brother] of being caught, by chance, in
a l'alse slaleinoni, that as a smali íxiy he acquired the hábil of adding
e x t e n s i ó n o f these ideas to logic has s e e m e d e n t i r e l y n a t u r a l . M a d i e i n a l -
jx-rhaps' to everyihing he said. 'Is that you, l l a n y ? ' Mama might cali íiom
ical l a ü o s a n d g e o i n e t r i c a l figures c a r r y w i t h t h e m a c l e a r e n o u g h i d e a the drawing-ioom. 'Yes, Mama—perhaps.' 'Are you going upstairsP' 'Ves,
o f f o r m ; so n o w o n d e r the d o c t r i n e that logical f o r m c o u l d be c o n s t i u e d perliaps.' 'Will you see if I've lefl my bag in thc bcclrcx)m?' 'Ves, Mama,
i n the same way has p r o v e d e x t r e i n e l y attracüve. peilia|)s—p'r'lia|).s—paps!'

T h e analogy between r a ü o n a l assessment a n d j u d i c i a l p r a c ü c e presen ts Eleanor h'dtjeon, A Nursery in ttie Nineties

US w i l h a rival m o d e l for t h i n k i n g a b o u l the i d e a o f logical f o r m . I l now
ap[)ears that a r g u m e n t s must n o l j u s l have a p a r ü c u l a r s h a p e , but must be
T h e s e firsi two stiidies are b o t h , i n different ways, p r e l i i n i n a r y ones. T h c
set o u l a n d p r e s e n l e d i n a s e q u e i i c e o f steps ( o n f b r m i n g l o c e r t a i n basi<
a i m o f the íirsl was to i n d i c a l e i n b r o a d o u l l i n e the s l r u c l i i r e o u r ar-
r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e . I n a w o r d , r a t i o n a l assessment is a n aclivity necessarily
g u i n e n l s lake i n praclic e, a n d the l e a d i n g features o f the calegories we
i n v o l v i n g /rtm«////>.v. W h e n we t u r n i n i h e t h i r d essay l o c o n s i d e r the layoul
e m p l o y i n i h e p r a c l i c a l assessment o f these a r g u m e n t s . B y a n d large,
o f a r g u m e u l s , we shall a c c o r d i n g l y have a d e l i n i l e cpiestion l o slart l'rom;
I a i m e d i h r o u g h o u l il to sleer c l e a r o f e x p l i c i t l y p h i l o s o p h i c a l issues ancl
we must ask how far the f o r m a l c h a r a c t e r o f s o i i n d a r g u m e n t s c a n be
Icave over l o be di.scusscxl later the relevance o f o u r c o n c l u s i o n s for |)hi-
i h o u g h l o f more gfomt'triro, as a m a t t e r o f t h e i r h a v i n g the r i g h l sorts o f
losophy. T h e m e t h c x l o f this s e c o n d stiidy w i l l be r a t h e r different. We
shaix-, a n d how far i l needs lo be l l i o u g h l of, rather, i n p r o c e d u r a l l e r m s ,
shall i n the c o u r s e o f i l c a r r y o u r analysis o f m o d a l terms r a t h e r f u r t h e r ;
as a m a l t e r o f t h e i r c o n f o r m i n g l o the f b r m a l i l i e s w h i c h must be observed
\el at the same l i m e a secondai-y a i m w i l l be to i n d í c a l e h o w the resulLs
i f any r a t i o n a l assessment o f a r g u m e n t s is to be possible.
o f such a n incpiii-y c a n be relevant to p h i l o s o p h i c a l q u e s l i o n s a n d p r o l >
lems; a n d c e r t a i n b r o a d c o n c l u s i o n s w i l l be suggested w h i c h w i l l have lo
be eslablished m o r e securely a n d i n m o r e g e n e r a l t e n n s i n s u b s e q u e n t
essays.
T h i s difference i n a i m is r e f l e c t e d i n the type o f e x a i n p l e s c h o s e n for
discussion. I n the first süidy I w i s h e d to b r i n g o u t clearly what a c t u a l fiinc-
l i o n s o u r n u x l a l t e n n s p e r f o n n i n the c o u r s e o f p r a c t i c a l a r g u m e n l s , w i l h -
oiit b e i n g d i s t r a c l e d by |)lulosoj)hical p r e c o n c e p t i o n s a n d disputes w h i c h
we were not yet ready l o face: I therefore c h o s e to c o n c é n t r a t e o n the

41
p
44 Prohnhility
iiiiinKMXSting a n d i r r e l e v a n t — i n d e e d h e counter-attacks, a n d j u s ü f i e s his
disniissal o f s u c h appeals o n the g r o u n d s that they a r e 'pre-scientific'.
( W h e t h e r a n y t h i n g w l i i c h is pre-scientific is necessarily also í/n-scientific
is a n o t i i e r i i i a l t e r , to w h i c h we s h a l l have to r e t u r n at the d o s e o f this
essay.) S t i l l , t h o u g h h e w o u l d c l a i i n to despise the u n s o p h i s t i c a t e d study
o f the pre-scientific t e m í ' p r o b a b l e ' a n d its cognates, we c a n afford to l o o k
a n d see what h e has to say aboiit m o r e up-to-date k i n d s o f probability.
O n e c o n c l u s i ó n he presents w i l l be o f p a r t i c u l a r interest to iis: he is l e d
to irisist that the v e i y w o r d ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' is t l i r o u g h - a n d - t h r o u g h a m b i g u -
ons, a n d the reasoiis w h i c h h e gives for i n s i s l i n g o n the p o i n t w i l l prove
i l l u i i i i n a t i i i g . F a r f r o m a l l o w i n g that this is a j ) i o p e r c o n c l u s i ó n , I s h a l l
a r g u e that it is a p a r a d o x , a n d is f o r c e d o n h i i i i j i i s t becausehe dismisses so
c a v a l i e i i y all q i i e s n o i i s about ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' i n a less t e c h n i c a l sense. W h e i i
s u c h c o n s i d e r a t i o n s are l e - i n t r o d u c e d , the p a r a d o x e s i n t o w h i c h he í i n d s
h i i n s e l f d i i v e n c a n be resolved.
T h e j ) r o g r a n i m c o f this essay w i l l be r o u g h l y as follows. I s h a l l begin by
a n a l y s i n g the m o s i | ) n m i t i v e o r i g i n s o f the i i o t i o n o f probability, a n d w o r k
by stages towards iis m o r e s o j i l i i s l i c a l e d a n d t e c h n i c a l r e f i n e m e n t s . I n
d o i i i g this, I s h a l l be a i n i i n g to b r i n g out c l e a r l y the r e l a t i o n s between the
t e m í ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' a n d the g e n e r a l fainily o f m o d a l t e m i s . A s the analysis
proceeds, I s h a l l c o n f i a r e the results o b t a i n e d against the philoso¡)liical
l l i e o r i e s oí' K n e a l e a n d ( ; a n i a | ) , s b o w i n g w h e r e , i n my o | ) i n i o i i , they go
astray t h r o u g h íailing to a t t e n d sufíiciently to the p r a c t i c a l f u n c t i o n oí
m o d a l terms. S o m e o f tlii- d i s t i i i c l i o n s a n d c o n d u s i o n s w h i c h the i i u j i u r y
will b r i n g to light will be c l a r i ü e d a n d m o r e fully w o r k e d o u t i n the t l i r e e
r e i i i a i n i i i g essays.
I Kuow, I Promise, Probably
1-et U S e x a m i n e first what we a l l l e a r n first, the adverb ' p r o b a b l y ' : its forcé
c a n best be s h o w n w i t h the l i e l p o f s o m e e l e m e n t a r y e x a m p l e s .
T h e i c comes a moiiicnl in thc life of a well-brought-up sinall boy wheii he liiuls
himself in a quandaiy For the last week he has come every day after tea to play with
the Hule giii who lives in the next street, and he has begun to valué her esteeni.
Now Ix'd-tinie is iiear, Motliei' has come to fetch hiin away, and his coni|)anion
says, with brighl eyes, 'Yon will come to-inorrow, won'tyou?' Ordinaiily he would
have answered 'Yes' without a qualm, lorevei-y other evening he has fully inteuded
to come next day, and known of nothing to stand in his way. B u t . . . but diere was
some talk at home of a visit to the Zoo to-morrow; and what if that, and tea in a
tea-shop afterwards, and the crowds in the Tube, nieanl that they were late gelling
I Kiinw, I Promise, Probably 45
hoiue, and lliat he was to fail, after saying 'Yes'? . . . How difficult life is! I f he says
'Yes' and then cannot come, she will be entilled to feel that he has let her down.
II he says 'No', and then Is back in time after all, she will uot be exix-ctiug him
Mid he won't be able, dccendy, lo come; and so he will have deprived himself, by
l i i s own word, of his chief pleasure. What is he to say? He turns to his mollier for
lulp. She, uudeistatiding the dilemina, smiles and |)ieseiits him with a way out:
' l'ell her that yon'll frmbably come, darling. Ex[)lain that yon can't promise, since it
il( pends on what time we get home, but say that you'll come if yon possibly can.'
Ihankful for the rellef, he turns back and uttcrs the magic word: 'Probably'.
I h e i m p o r t a i i t d i f f e i e i i c e to n o t i c e h e r e is that between saying ' I s h a l l
( o m e ' a n d saying ' I s h a l l probably c o m e ' . T h i s difference is s i m i l a r i n
( haiacter, t h o u g l i op|)osite i n sense to that w h i c h Professor J . L . A i i s t i n
has discussed, b e l w e e n saying ' S is P ' o r ' I s h a l l d o A ' , a n d saying ' I k n o w
that S is P ' o r ' I p r o m i s e that I s h a l l d o A ' . O n this subject, let m e qiiote
Austin's paper:
VVhen I say 'S is P', I iniply at least that I believe it, and, if I have been strictly
l)i<)uglit iip, that I ani (quite) suie of it: when I say ' I shall do A ' , I imply at least
ihat I liope to do it, and, if I have been stricUy brought up, that I (fully) intend
ici. I f I oiily Ixlieve lliat S is P, I can add 'But ol roui.se I iiiay (veiy well) be
wiong': if I ouly liope to do A , I can add 'But of couise I may (very well) not'.
When I oniy believe or only hope, it is lecognised that bu ther evidence oi f'urllier
(licumslaiices are liable to make me chaiige iiiy luiud. I f I say 'S is P' when I don't
(•ven believe it, I ani lying: if I say il wlieii I believe it but ani not suie of it, I may be
misleadirig bul I am not exaclly lying. I f I .say ' I shall do A ' when I have not eveii
.iiiy hope, not the slighiest inteiitioii of doing i l , iheu I ani delibeiately deceiviug;
il I say it when I do not fully intend to, I am misleading but I am noi deliberalely
(Iccciving in the same way.
But now, when I .say ' I promise', a new pliinge is taken: I have not merely
.iniiouiiced niy iiitention, but, by usiiig this formula (peífoiiiiing this ritual), I
have boiind iiiy.self lo others, and staked my lepiitation, iu a new way. Similaiiy,
saying ' I know' is taking a new plunge. But it is nal saying ' I have performed a
spccially striking feat of cognition, .superior, in the same sc.ale as believing and
I x i u g suie, eveii lo being merely <]uite suie': for tlieie is nothing iu that scale
superior lo beiug quite sure. Just as promising is not .something su|X'iior, in the
s.ime srale as hoping and intending, even to merely fully inteuding: for ihere is
nolhliig in that scale superior to fully intending. When I say ' I know', Igixieothers
m\ I gixif others my autimity for saying that 'S is P'.^^
( ) u r s m a l l boy's difficulty c a n be p u l as follows. If, i n r e p l y to his c o m -
p a u i o n ' s a p p e a l ' Y o n will come to-morrow, w o n ' t y o n ? ' , h e says 'Yes, I ' l l
( o i i i e ' , he c o n i i n i t s himself. F o r l o u t t e r the w o r d s 'Yes, V\l c o m e ' , is l o
say y o u ' l l c o m e , a n d this, w h i l e n o t b e i n g as s o l e n i n a n d p o r l e n t o i i s as a
' 'Olhei Minds'inrtí/f//^/H^'-Mf/^'y, 211(1 series, pp. 143-4.
46 l'inl/abilily
p i o i i i i s c , is i i i s o m e ways a l l b i i t o n e . ( ' I d i d n ' l p r o m i s e ' : ' M a y b e i i o i , b u l
yon asgood « . s p r o m i s e d . ' ) By saying, 'Yes, I ' l l c o m e ' , he not oidy leads h e r
l o e x p e c t h i m ( i . e . l o a n l i c i [ ) a l e , to m a k e p r e p a r a l i o n s for, h i s a r r i v a l ) . H e
aiso enstires that c o n i i n g l o - m o r r o w w i l l be s o m e t h i n g that is e x p e c l e d o f
h i m : h e gives h e r reason to r e p r o a r b h i m i f h e does not I n r n u p , t h o u g h
n o t o f c o u r s e reason lo r e p r o a c h h i m in s u c h s i r o n g l e r m s as she w o u l d
be e n l i d e d lo use ií he w e r e to fail afler h a v i n g p r o m i s e d — i . e . afler liav-
i n g s o l e m n l y said, I |)r<)mise that I ' l l c o m e ' . T o say 'Yes', w h e n t h e r e was
a n y reason l o su])pose tbal he ndght be |>revented f r o m c o i n i n g , w o u k l
t h e r e í b r e be laying u p t r o u b l e for himself.
T h e point o f the w o r d ' p r o b a b l y ' , l i k e t h a l o f the w o r d ' { ) e r h a p s ' , is lo
a v o i d j u s i this t r o u b l e . B y saying ' I k n o w that S is P ' o r ' I p r o m i s e l o d o
A ' , I expressly c o m m i l myself, i n a way i n w h i c h I also do—though to a
lesser d e g r e e a n d o n l y by i m ] ) l i c a l i ( ) n — i f I say ' S is P ' o r ' I s h a l l d o A ' .
B y saying, ' S is |)robal)ly P ' o r ' I s h a l l probably d o A ' , I expressly a v o i d
u n r e s e i v e d l y ( o m m i l l i n g myself. I i n s u r e m y s e l f d i e r e b y against some
o f i b e cousecpiences ol f a i l u n - . My l U l e r a n c e is t h e r e b y 'guarded'—that
is, i n i h e w o r d s o f i h e Pocket Oxford Dictionary, ' s e c u r e t l by s t i p u l a t i o n
I r o m abuse o r m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g ' . B u t the i n s u r a n c e is not i n d i m i l e d ;
the n a l u r e o f the s l i p n l a l i o n n n i s l , i n n o r m a l cases, be m a d e ( p i i l e c h a r
( ' I t d e p e m l s o n what time we get h o m e " ) , a n d the p r o l e c t i o n a f f o i d e d
by the use of the w o r d ' [ j r o b a b l y ' e x i e n d s i n the fii-sl place o n l y to those
c o n l i n g e n c i e s whi( h have b e e n expressly s t i p i d a l e d . To say ' I ' l l probably
c o m e , b u l i l d e p e n d s o n w b a l lime- we get back f r o m the Z o o ' , a n d t h e n
n o t to go i n spile o f b e i n g back i n ])lenty o f t i m e , w o u l d be (even i f n o l
d e l i b é r a t e d e c e i t ) at any rato ' t a k i n g advantage'; as m i s l e a d i n g as saying
i n u e s e r v e d l y ' I ' l l c o m e ' , a n d t h e n not going. Y o n are a g a i n c o m m i l i e d ,
a n d t h e r e f o i f again i c s p o n s i b l e : l o a l l e n i p t l o e x c u s e y o u r s e l f by saying,
' B u t I o n l y t o l d y o n I ' d probably come , w o u l d be a p i e c e o f b a d foidi.
Ñ o r o f c o u r s c is a n y o n e w h o uses i h e w o r d ' p r o b a b l y ' i n ibis way per-
m i l t e d lo fail e i l h e r always o r often, even t h o u g h h e may have ' c o v e i c d '
h i m s e l f expressly e v e i y t i m e . B y saying ' p r o b a b l y ' y o n m a k e y o i u s e l f a n -
swerable for f u l f i l m e n l , i f n o l o n a l l , at least o n a r e a s o n a b l e p r o p o r t i o n o f
occasions: i l is not e n o i t g h ihat y o n have a n e x c u s e f o r e a c h single failure.
O n l y i n s o m e specialised cases is this r e q u i r e m e n t l a c i l l y s u s p e n d e d —
' W h e n a w o m a n says " P e r h a p s " , she m e a n s "Yes": w h e n a d i ] i l o i n a t says
"Perliaj)s", he means "No".'
Finally, a n d i n the n a t u r e o f the case, c e r t a i n f o r m s oí words are
|)rohibiled. To foUow A u s t i n a g a i n , ' Y o n are p r o h i b i t e d íroin saying
" I k n o w it is so, but I may be w r o i i g " , j u s t as y o n a r e p r o h i b i t e d f r o m saying
/ Know, I Promise, Probably 47
"I promise I w i l l , but I m a y f a i l . " I f y o n a r e aware y o n may l)e m i s t a k e n
(have some c o n c r e t e reason l o suj)|)ose that y o u may be m i s t a k e n i n this
c a s e ) , y o u o u g h t n ' t to say y o u know, j u s t as, i f you are aware y o u may
l)reak y o m w o r d , y o u have n o business to p r o m i s e . ' i I n the same way,
a n d for the same reasons, y o u are p r o h i b i t e d f r o m saying T U probably
( o m e , but I shan't be able l o ' ; for to say this is lo lake away with the last
hall o f y o u r u t i e r a n c e w h a l y o u gave w i t h the íirst. I f y o u k n o w that y o u
will not he able to go, y o u have n o r i g h t to say a n y t h i n g w h i c h c o m m i i s
y o u i n any way l o g o i n g .
I n this íii>il e x a m p l e , we see h o w the w o r d ' p r o b a b l y ' ct)mes lo be used
as a m e a n s o f g i v i n g g u a r d e d u n d e r t a k i n g s a n d m a k i n g i p i a l i í i e d decla-
lations o f o n e ' s i n t e n t í o n s . P h i l o s o p h e r s , however, have b e e n c o n c e r n e d
less with this s o r l o f use o f the w o r d i b a n they have with ils use i n scientiíic
statements a n d especially, i n view o f the t r a d i l i o n a l c o n n e c t i o n b e l w e e n
the p r o b l c m s o f probability a n d i n d u c t i o n , vdth its use i n p r e d i c t i o n s . I t is
i m p o r t a n t, i h e r e f o r e , l o i l l u s l i a t e the e v e i y d a y u.se o f the w o r d ' p r o b a b l y '
in s u c h a c o n l e x l , a n d we may c h o o s e for this |)inj)ose a l y p i c a l e x l r a c t
l i o m a weather forecasi:
A complex dislurbance al pie.sent over Icelaud is U H n i n g i u an easterly direction.
Cloudy ronditions now afiecting Northern Ireland will spread lo N.'W. F.ngland
(luring the day, jii-obably exiending lo the icst of tlie couruiy iu llie course of the
cveiiing a n t i nigbt.
A l l the features c h a r a c l e r i s t i c o f o u r p r e v i o u s e x a m p l e a r e to lie f o u n d
hete also. I h e M e t e o r o l ó g i c a ! O f l i c e ' s forecasters a r e p r e p a r e d to c o n i -
mit themselves unresei-vedly l o i h e first o f t h e i r | ) r e d i c l i o n s (that the
( l o u d y ( o n d i l i o n s w i l l s p r e a d to N.W. E l n g l a n d <hiring i h e i l a y ) , but they
a i e not p r e p a r e d to d o ibis i n the case o f the s e c o n d (that i h e d o u d will
c x t e n d lo the rest o f i h e c o u n l i y d i i r i n g tlie e v e n i n g a n d n i g h t ) ; a n d they
know that, the M . O . b e i n g the M . O . , we have l o go by w h a t they say. I f
they l u i r e s e r v e d l y í b i e c a s t c l o u d later today a n d t h c skies r e m a i n clear,
ihey c a n j u s t i f i a b l y be r o i i n d e d o n by the housewife w h o has p u t o f f h e r
heavy wash o n a c c o u n i o f t h e i r ¡ i r e d i c t i o n . I f they say ' . . . w i l l c e r l a i i d y
spread . . . ' o r 'We k n o w that c l o u d y c o n d i l i o n s w i l l s p r e a d . . . ' , t h e r e w i l l
in case o f failure be e v e n m o r e cause for c o m p l a i n i ; t h o u g h , as it is the
M.O.'s business l o k n o w a n d they are the a u t h o r i ü e s o n the sidiject o f
ibe weather, we t e n d to lake for g r a n t e d i n t h e i r case the i n t r o d u c l o r y
l o i i n u l a 'We k n o w . . . ' . I n the [ i i e s e n t s t a l e o f t h e i r s c i e n c e , however, ihey
I /,(«. lii. p|). 142-3.
48 Prohah'dily
c a n n o t safely—cannot w i t h o u t a s k i n g for t r o u b l e , that is—always c o n i i n i t
themselves to i m q u a l i f i e d precUctions for m o r e t h a n a n e x t r e m e l y l i m i t e d
t i m e a h e a d : what t h e n are they to say about the c o m i n g night?
H e r e a g a i n the w o r d ' p r o b a b l y ' comes i n t o its o w n . J u s t as it íinds
a p l a c e as a m e a n s o f g i v i n g g u a i d e d a n d r e s t i i c t e d u n d e r t a k i n g s , so it
c a n be u s e d w h e n we have to u t t e r g u a r d e d a n d r e s t r i c t e d p r e d i c t i o n s —
p r e d i c t i o n s l o w h i c h , for some c o n c r e t e reason o r other, we are not jire-
p a r e d positively l o c o m m i l our.selves. O n c e a g a i n , however, the use oí i h e
w o r d ' p r o b a b l y ' i n s u r e s o n e againsl only some o f the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f
f a i l u r e . I f l l i e forecasters say ' j j r o b a b l y e x t e n c l i n g ' , they cover ihemselves
o n l y w i l h i n those l i m i i s w h i c h have to be r e c o g n i s e d as reasonable i n the
j ) r e s e n l s l a l e oí iiieleorology. I f c l o u d s d o not t u r n u p over the resi oí i h c
c o u n t r y s o o n e r o r later, we a r e e n t i l l e d to ask why. A n d i f i n reply to this
i i u p i i i y they refuse to offer a n y e x p l a i i a l i o n , s u c h as they iiiight give by
s a y i n g , ' I h e anii-cyclone over N o r t h e r n F r a n c e p e r s i s l e d for l o i i g e r t h a n
is u s u a l i i i i d e r s u c h c i r c u i i i s l a i i c e s ' , b u l I r y to e x c u s e themselves w i l h l l i e
w o r d s , ' A f t e r a l l we o n l y s a i d the c l o u d s w o u l d probably c x t e n d ' , t h e n they
a r e h e d g i n g , t a k i n g refuge, q u i b b l i n g , a n d we are e n t i l l e d lo suspeci i h a l
t h e i r p r e d i í t i o i i , even t h o i i g l i g u a r d e d a n d restric l e d , was a n i m p r o p e r
one—i.<-. o n e m a d e o n i i i a d e q u a t e g r o u n d s . ( A t this point d i e use oí the
m o d a l t e r m ' p r o b a b l y ' to i i i a i k the sul)-staiidard <]ualily o f the midmce
a n d argiimeiilM i h e s p e a k e i ' s disposal begins l o e n l e r the p i c t u r e . )
F u r t h e r , i f y o n use the w o r d ' p r o b a b l y ' i n p r e d i c t i o n s c o r r e c l l y , y o u
a r e not p e r m i t t e d to p r o v e m i s t a k e n e i ü i e r always o r often, even t h o u g h
y o n m a y be expressly c o v e r e d every l i m e . I n p r e d i c l i o n s as i n p r o m i s e s ,
by saying ' p r o b a b l y ' you m a k e y o u r s e l f answerable for fulíilmeiil o n a
r e a s o n a b l e p r o p o r t i o n o f occasions: il is n o l e n o u g h that y o u have a n
e x p l a n a l i o n o f e a c h single f a i l u r e . I n | ) r e d i c l i o n s , a g a i n , c e r t a i n forms oí
w o r d s musí be r u l e d out. " I h e c l o u d will probably e x i e n d l o the rest o f
the c o u n t r y , but i l w o n ' t ' is n o m o r e permissible i b a n ' I ' l l probably c o m e ,
b u t I s h a n ' t be able to', ' I p r o m i s e I w i l l , b u t I m a y f a i l ' o r ' I k n o w i l is so,
b u l I may be m i s t a k e n ' . F o r a g u a r d e d p r e d i c t i o i i , t l i o u g l i d i s l i i i c l f r o m
a posilive p i e d i c t i t ) n , is p r o p e i i y u n d e r s t o o d as g i v i n g the l i e a i e r reason
to e x p e c t ( h o p e for, p r e p a r e for, e t c . ) that w h i c h is forecast, even t h o u g h
h e is i m p l i ( illy w a r n e d n o l l o b a i i k o n it; a n d l o u t t e r e v e n a (pialiíied
p r e d i c l i o n is i i u o m p a l i b l e w i l h ílatly d e i i y i n g it.
O n e d i s t i n c i i o n iiecds to be r e n i a i k e d o n at this p o i n t , since negleci
o f it c a n l e a d o n e into p l i i l o s o p h i c a l difíiciilties h e r e as elsewhere. W h a l
a n i i l l e r a n c e a c l u a l l y states is o n e l l i i n g : what it i m p l i e s , o r gives p e o p l c
to u n d e r s t a n d , is another. F o r i i i s t a n c e , giving s o m e o n e reason l o expect
'Improbable But True' 49
s o m e t h i n g is n o l necessarily the s a m e as e x p l i c i t l y saying, ' I expect i t ' ,
O I i v e i i , ' I expet I it with r e a s o n ' . T h e M . O . forecasters a r e n o l , as s o m e
p h i l o s o p h e r s have suggesied, sayingÚrAX they are tpiile c e r t a i n tbal the
( l o u d w i l l r e a c h N.W. E i i g l a i i d today b u l only íaiiiy c o n í i d e n t i l i a i it w i l l
e x t e n d l o the rest o f Üie counti-y before l l i e n i g h t is out; t h o u g h they
are o f ( o u r s e hnplying, a n d giving o n e to u n d e r s t a n d this, s i n c e it is t h e i r
business as w e a t h e r íbrecasters n o l l o say ' w i l l s i ) r e a d ' uiiless i h e y are s u r e ,
o r to say ' j i r o b a b l y e x t e n d i n g ' unless they are íairly c o n í i d e n t . W h a l they
are l a l k i i i g about is the w e a l l i e r : w h a t we i n f e r about t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s
is o n l y i i i i | j l i e d by t h e i r a c l u a l i i l l e r a n c e s . ' S a y i n g " I k n o w ' " , as Professor
A u s l i i i |)()ints o u t , 'is «o/saying " I have p e r f o r m e d a s|K-cially s t r i k i n g feat
o f c o g n i t i o n , s u p e r i o r , i n the same scale as b e l i e v i n g a n d b e i n g s u r e , e v e n
lo b e i n g m e r e l y quite s i i r e " : for t h e r e is n o t h i n g i n that scale s u p e r i o r
lo b e i n g ( p i i l e s u r e . . . . W h e n I say " I k n o w " , I give olfiers my word: I give
others my aulliority for saying ÚVAÍ "S is P " . ' So also, saying ' S is probably P '
is nol saying ' I a m fairly c o n í i d e n t , b u t less t h a n c e r t a i n , that S is P ' , for
probably' does n o l b e l o n g i n this series o f words e i l h e r . W h e n I say ' S is
probably P ' , I c o m m i l niyselí guardedly, tentalively o r w i l h reservatioiis
lo the view that S is P, a n d ( l i k e w i s e g u a r d e d l y ) l e i i d my a u t h o r i t y to
that view.
'Improbable But T n i e '
I n llie light o f these exam|)les, let m e t u r n l o the difíl( ulties w h i c h o n e
may find i n COUIUM l i n g i h e s t a l e i i i e n i s a b o u t |)it)bability i n K n e a l e ' s \mok
with the k i n d s o f evei yday use we m a k e o f the í'amily o f w o r d s , '|)robably',
p r o b a b l e ' , ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' , ' l i k e l y ' , ' c h a n c e ' a n d so o n .
The first diíTicully ( o n s i s i s i n s e e i n g i n c o n c r e t e l e r m s w h a l K n e a l e
is ( l a i m i n g , w h e n he uses l l i e a b s i i a c t i i o u n ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' o r bis o w n
neologisiiis 'probabilify' a n d ' p r o b a b i l i í í c a l i o n ' , i n s l e a d o f m o r e f a m i l i a r
l o c u l i o n s . T h i s d i í í i c u l l y c o u l d |)robably be o v e r e ó m e , at least i n part, by
c a r e í u l a l l e n t i o n to the ( o n t e x t , so for l l i e m o m e n t I s h a l l d o litlle m o r e
t h a n m e n l i o u it. CÁ'rtainly i i i a n y o f the l l i i n g s he expre.s.ses i n l e r m s o f
the n o i i i i ' ¡ ) i o b a b i l i l y ' c o u l d be p u t i n m o r e c o n c r e t e t e r m s . F o r i i i s t a n c e ,
in saying ' P r o b a b i l i t y often enables iis to act ratioiially w h e n w i t l u m t it
we s h o u l d be r e d i i c e d to hel|)lessness', be p r e s n m a b l y has i n i i i i n d this
k i i i d o f fact: t h a l to say o f a m a n that h e knows that it will probably r a i n
lilis a f t e r n o o n i m p l i e s that h e k n o w s e n o u g h to Ix- w e l l advised to e x p e c t
a n d |)repare for r a i n ibis a f t e r n o o n , t h o u g h n o l e n o u g h to be seriously
s u i p i i s e d i f i l l i o l d s off í o r o n c e ; w l i e r e a s to say that h e does n o t e v e n
5" Probability
k u o w i l i a i u u u l i iin|)lies that h e has n o t h i n g very d e f n i i l e to go o n w h e n
it c o m e s to p r e d i c t i n g a n d p r e p a r i n g for the afternoon's weather—to
describe b i m as ' r e d n c e d to h e i p l e s s n c s s ' is liowever too s t r on g . ( I a m
less sure w h a l we ought lo m a k e o f the w o r d ' p r o b a b i l i h c a t i o n ' a n d we
s h a l l have l o r e t i u i i to this q u e s t i o n later.) ' .
T h e s e c o n d diíficidty is m o r e serious. F o r i n several places i n K n e a l e ' s
introducloi-y c b a p t i r , he not o n l y m isre|)r es en l s die f a m i l i a r terms he is
a n a l y s i n g a n d c x p l a i n i n g , b u l i n e a c h i n s i a n c e inststs on d o i n g so, sj)ecif-
ically d a i m i n g as g o o d sense (despite a p p e a r a n c e s ) s o m e t h i n g w h i c h is
a manifest s o l e c i s m — a n d a solecism for reasons w h i c h t i n i i out l o be
philoso])hically iinportanl.
T h r e e pa.s.sages m a y be q u o t e d i n w h i c h this happens:
( i ) ' P r o b a b i l i t y is relalive to e v i d e n c e ; a n d even what is k n o w n l o be ,
false m a y b e d e s c r i b e d tpiite i'easonably as probable i n r e l a t i o n l o a c e r t a i n
s e l e c l i o n o f e v i d e n c e . We admit ibis in wi i t i n g h i s i c i y I f a g e n e r a l , h a v i n g
m a d e his d i s ] ) o s i l i o n s i n the light o f i h e e v i d e n c e at his disposal, was t h e n
d e f e a l e d , we d o n o l necessarily say that be was a bad g e n e i a l , i.e. t h a l
he h a d a |)oor j u d g e m e i i l about j i r o b a b i l i t i e s i n niilitary affairs. We m a y
say that h e d i d what was most sensible i n the c i r c i i m s t a n c e s , because i n
i c l a t i o n to i h e e v i d e n c e w h i c h h e c o u l d a n d d i d obtain it was p r o b a b l e
that be w o u k l w i n w i t h those dispositions. Similarly what is k n o w n l o
have h a | ) i ) e n i ( l m a y be e x t r e m e l y i m p r o b a b l e i n relation to e v e i y l h i n g
we k n o w e x c e j j l that fact. " I m p r o b a b l e b u l t m e " i s n o t a c o n l i a d i c t i o i i i n
l e i n i s . O n i h e c o n i r a i y , we asseri just this w h e n e v f r we .say o f a fací t h a l
il is strange o r sui j>rising.'"' Against ibis a r g u m e n t four o b j e c l i o n s c a n be
m a d e . T o begin w i l h , w h a l is k n o w n by me to be false m a y be s p o k e n o f
cpiite l e a s o n a b l y as p r o b a b l e by otiiers, h a v i n g regard to the e v i d e n c e a l
t l u ' i r disposal: I c a n , at most, speak o f it as ' h a v i n g seemed p r o b a b l e u n t i l
il was discovei e d to be false'. A g a i n , i f we say that tlie g e n e r a l d i d what was
most sensible i n the c i r c u m s U i n c e s , we d o so because i n r e l a t i o n to t h e
e vi d e nce wbic b he coidfl a n d d i d o b t a i n it musí liave s e e m e d probable,
a n d was |)erfeclly reasonable U) suppose, t h a l he w o u l d w i n w i t h those
dispositions. T h e f o r m o f words ' I t was p r o b a b l e that h e w o u l d w i n . . .'
c a n Ije i m d e r s i o o d h e r e a n d n o w o n l y as a r e p o r t , i i oratio obliqua, o f what
the g e n e r a l may reasonably have tbought at the time. I n the t b i r d p l a c e ,
what is now k n o w n to have h a p p e n e d may e a r l i e r have s e e m e d e x t r e m e l y
i m p r o b a b l e , h a v i n g r e g a r d to e v e i y t b i n g we then k n e w ; a n d it m a y yet
s e e m so, w i t h r e a s o n , l o o n e w h o knows now o n l y what we k n e w t h e n . B t i l
•'' l'néíMily and hiiluiliini, i, 3, p p . 9-10.
'Improbable But True' 61
w h i l e he may properly, t h o u g h mistakenly, speak o f it as ' i m p r o b a b l e ' , we
w h o k n o w what actually h a p p e n e d may not.
Finally, n o o n e p e r s o n is p e r m i t t e d , i n o n e a n d the same b r e a t h , to c a l i
the same t h i n g b o l h i m p r o b a b l e a n d t r u e , for reasons we have already
seen: to d o ibis is to take away with o n e h a n d w h a t is given w i t h the o t b e i .
So the f o r m o f words ' i m p r o b a b l e but t r u e ' is n i l e d t ) u t — e x c e j j l as a
d e l i b é r a t e shocker. O n e c a n perhaps i m a g i n e a newspaper c o h m n n s l ' s
i r a d i n g o n the q u e e r n e s s o f ibis f o r m o f words by using i l as the tille o f a
c o l u i n n s i m i l i a r l o R i p l e y ' s Believe It or Not, a n d n o doubt this is the k i n d o f
possibiliiy K n e a l e refei-s to i n his lasi s e n t e n c e ; but i n su c h a c o n l e x l the
phrase ' I m p r o b a b l e but I n i e ' is a n effective substilule for ' s u r p i i s i u g ' j u s t
becatise it is a c o n t r a c t i o n of'seems i m p r o b a b l e but is t r u e ' , r a t h e r t h a n o f
'/•,sim])i()l)able b i u i s t r u e ' . ( W h e l h e r o r n o we s h o u l d say that ' i m p r o b a b l e
btil t r u e ' is a n a c l u a l c o n i r a d i c t i o n is a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n , a n d o n e that
m i g b l get US i n t o d e e p water, t h o u g h I t h i n k a s t r o n g case c o u l d be m a d e
o u t for c a l l i n g it o n e . ) C^eriainly we c a n speak o f a tale as i m p r o b a b l e -
s o u n d i u g b u l t r u e , a n d i n the course o f a conversation o n e p e r s o n m i g h t
sjH-ak o f .someüiing as i m p r o b a b l e u n t i l the o t h e r pei^on a s s u r e d h i m
that it was t n i e — a f t e r that, the sceptic w o u l d lx> l i m i t e d to saying, ' I t still
seems to m e most i m p r o b a b l e ' , o r m o r e baldly, ' I don't believe i t ' , since
there is n o place any l o n g e r for the w o r d s ' I l /,s i m p r o b a b l e ' .
( i i ) ' I f I say " I l is probably r a i n i n g " , I a m n o l a s s e i l i n g i n a n y way t h a l it
is r a i n i n g , a n d the discovery that n o r a i n was falling wotdd n o t refute m y
s i a t e m e n i , a l l h o u g h i l might r e n d e r it useless.'" I i i this case it is n u c l e a r
w h a l K n e a l e w o u l d accept, o r reluse to a c c e p t , as 'asserting s o m e l b i u g
in any way'; a n d l u i c l e a r also w h a t e x a c l l y is the forcé o f his d i s t i n c t i o n
between r e n d e i i n g a slatement useless a n d r e f u t i n g it. Bu t surely, i f I say
I l is probably r a i n i n g ' a n d it turns o u l not to be, i h e n (a) I was m i s t a k e n ,
(/;) I cannot n o w r e p e a l the c l a i m , a n d (c) I c a n properly be callee! u p o n to
say w h a t m a d e m e t l n n k it was r a i n i n g . ( A n s w e r , for instance: ' I t s o u n d e d
a s t h o u g h it was f r o m i h e noise outside, l ) u t I see now lliat w l i a l I l o o k l o be
r a i n was o n l y the w i n d i n i h e trees.') D o e s this not a m o i i n t to r c f u t a l i o i i ?
I n d e e d , o n c e we have f o u n d ou t for c e r t a i n e i l h e r that it is, o r that it
is not r a i n i n g , l!ie time to talk o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s at a l l is past: I c a n n o t
uiy l o n g e r say even t h a l i l is probably not r a i n i n g — t h e g u a r d is o u l o f
place.
( i i i ) 'We k n o w now that the stories w h i c h M a r c o Polo told o n his r e t u r n
lo V e n i c e w e r e t n i e , h o w e v e r i m p r o b a b l e they may have b e e n for his
'' lInU. S 2, p . 4.
.r,v! Probability
( i ) i i i ( i i i | ) ( ) r a r i e . s . ' ' K i i e a l e quotes this e x a m p l e o i i i h e very first page o f
his book, a n d places a g o o d d e a l o f weight o n it: it is, h e says, ' w o r d i
special n o t i c e , because it shows that what is i m p r o b a b l e m a y nevertheless
be t r u e . ' Yet it c o n t a i n s a vital a m b i g u i l y ; a n d we c a i u i o t place any weight
on it at a l l i n n i l this a m b i g u i t y is resolved. F o r are we l o u n d e r s t a n d d i e
w o r d s ' h o w e v e r i m p r o b a b l e they may have b e e n for h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s '
as b e i n g i u d i r e c i o r i n i n d i i e c t speech? I f d i e latter, i f for instance they
r e p o r t i n oiatio obliqua t h e r e a c ü o n at the tíme o f M a r c o Polo's fellow-
c o u n t r y m e n , t h e n the e x a m p l e may be perfecdy w e l l e x p r e s s e d , b u t it
does n o t i n a n y way show ' t h a l what is i m p r o b a b l e m a y ncverUieless be
i r u e ' — i . e . that what is p i o | x ; r l y s j j o k e n o f as i m p r o b a b l e may by the
same ] ) e r s o n a n d i n the same b r e a t h be p r o p e r l y s p o k e n o f as t r u e . I f o n
the o t h e r h a n d il is i n l e n d e d to be i n d i r e c i s p e e c h , as it m u s t be i f it is to
prove w h a l K n e a l e c l a i m s that it proves, t h e n ¡I is ex|)ressed very loosely.
H o w e v e r i m p r o b a b l e d i e stories w h i c h M a r c o P o l o l o l d o n h i s r e t u r n l o
V e n i c e m a y have s e e m e d to h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , we k n o w n o w i h a t diey
w e r e s u b s i a n l i a l l y I r u e : we l l i e r e f o r e have n o business to clescribe l l i e i n
as ever h a v i n g been i m p r o b a b l e , s i n c e for us lo d o ibis tends i n some
m e a s u r e to l e n d o u r a u i h o r i l y to a view w h i c h we k n o w to be false.
I n e a c h o f i h c s e passages, K n e a l e skates over o n e o r b o t l i o f two dosely-
r e l a t e d d i s t i u c t i o n s , w h i c h are i m p l i c i t i n o u r o r d i u a r y m a n n e r o f speak-
ing about p r o b a b i l i t i e s a n d e s s e i i l i a l l o the m e a i i i n g oí i h e n o t i o n . The
first o f these is the d i s t i n c t i o n b e l w e e n saying that s o m e l h i i i g is o r was
p r o b a b l e o r i i i i j ) r o b a b l e (e.g. ' T h i s m a n ' s stories o f a f l o u r i s l i i n g ein|)in>
íar away lo the casi are wildly i m p r o b a b l e ' , o r " I l u - i d e a that tbeirs was
by í a r the richest e i i i p i r e in the w o r l d h a d b e c o m e so i n g r a i n e d i n t l u '
V e i i e l i a n s tbal tales o f o n e yet r i c l i e r w e r e not l i k e l y l o be b e l i e v e d ' ) ,
a n d saying lliat it seems o r s e e m e d ]jrobable o r i m p r o b a b l e ('Though
s u b s i a i i l i a l l y t r u e , M a r c o P o l o ' s stories o f a f l o u r i s b i i i g e m p i r e far away
l o the easi seemed to the V e n e t i a n s o f h i s tíine w i l d l y increcüble a n d i m -
p r o b a b l e ' ) . T h e s e c o n d c o u c e r u s the difference i n the b a c k i n g n c p i i i e d
í b r c l a i m s that s o i i i e t h i n g is p r o b a b l e o r i m p r o b a b l e , w h e n these c l a i m s
are- m a d e by d i f í e r e n t p e o p l e o r at different times: at several places i n
the passages I have q u o l e d , il is left u n s l a t e d by w h o m o r o n what o c c a -
sion the d a i i n that ' p r o b a b l y so-and-so' is m a d e , a l l l i o u g b i l iiiakes a vital
difference l o the g r a m m a r a n d sense h o w o n e filis i n the b l a n k s .
N e g l e c t e d t h o u g h they have b e e n , these two d i s t i n c t i o n s a r e o f c e u l r a l
i m p o r t a n c e for the subject o f probability, a n d they a r e m o r e subtle i b a n
7 Ilml. i, 1, | ) . 1.
Improper Claims and Mistaken Claims .53
IS iisiially r e c o g n i s e d . We m u s í s p e i i d a l i t d e ü m e g e t t í n g t h e m s l i a i g h l ,
b e í b r e we c a n h o p e to see m o r e c l e a r l y t h e n a t u r e o f the p r o b l e m s w i l h
w h i d i p h i l o s o p h e r s o f f)robability c o n c e r n themselves.
I m p r o p e r C l a i m s a n d M i s t a k e n C^laiiiis
V\'e c a n t h r o w i i U o r e l i e f these í e a t u r e s o f probability ( ' p r o b a b l y ' , 'it
s e e m e d p r o b a b l e ' , etc.) by s e t l i n g t h e m alongside the c o r r e s p o n d i n g
Ieatures o f k n o w l e d g e ( ' I k n o w ' , ' H e k n e w ' , ' I d i d n ' t k n o w ' , ' H e tbought
he k n e w ' , e t c . ) .
Ihe c h i e f d i s l i n c l i o u to e x a m i n e for diese purposes is l l i a t b e l w e e n
saying o f s o m e o n e ' H e c l a i m e d to k n o w so-and-so, but he d i d n ' l ' , a n d
saying ' H e l l i o i i g l i l be knew, but h e was m i s t a k e n ' . S u p p o s e lliat I a m
i i y i i i g lo grow gentiaiis o n my r o c k - g a r d e i i , a n d t h a l they are n o l d o i n g
at all w e l l . A plausible n e i g h b o u r insists o n g i w n g m e his advice, t e l l i i i g
me w h a l i n his view is the cause o f t h e ü o u b l e , a n d w h a t m u s t be d o n e
lo l e m e d y it. I íbllow h i s advice, a n d a f l e r w a r d s the planLs a r e i n a worse
( o i i d i l i o n i b a n ever. T h e r e are at i b i s stage two subdy, b u l c o m p l e l e l y
d i l í e i e n l things I c a n .say about h i m a n d h i s advice: I c a n say ' H e t l i o u g h t
be knew w h a l w o u l d put m a l l e r s r i g h t , but he was m i s t a k e n ' o r I c a n say
I le d a i n i e d l o k n o w w h a l w o u l d p u l m a l l e r s r i g h t , b u l be d i d n ' t . '
I b see l l i e d i i í e i e n c e s b e l w e e n these two sorts o f c r i ü c i s n i , c o n s i d e r
what k i n d s o f t h i n g w o u l d be p r o p e r responses lo the c h a l l e n g e , ' W h y ( o n
what g r o u n d s ) d o y o n say that?' I f I .say ' I l e i h o u g l i l he k n e w w h a l w o u l d
pul m a l l e r s r i g h t , b u l he was m i s t a k e n ' , a n d I a m asked why I say i h a l ,
there is o n l y o n e l l i i n g to do i n r e p l y — n a m e l y , to p o i i i l to i h e d r o o p i i i g
g e n ü a n s . I l e p i e s c r i b e d a c e r t a i n c o u r s e o f t r e a t m e n t , a n d it was a f a i l u r e :
thatseules die iiiatler.
I f h o w e v e r I say i n s l e a d , H e c l a i m e d to k n o w w h a t w o u l d put m a t l e r s
I i g h l , b u l be d i d n T , the c o m p l a i n t is q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t o n e . W h e n a s k e d
wiiy I say so, I s h a l l give some s u c h a n s w e r as, ' H e has n o r e a l e x p e r i e n c e
oí g a r d e u i n g ' , o r ' H e may be a n e x p e r t g a r d e i i e r i n h i s o w n l i n e , but
he d o e s n ' t u n d e r s t a n d a l p i n e s ' , o r ' H e o n l y l o o k e d at t h e plants: w i l h
g e n ü a n s y o u have to s l a r i by testing the s o i l ' , o r ' H e m a y have tested
llu- soil, b u l be tested it for the w r o n g t h i n g s ' , e n d i i i g u p , i n e a c h case,
. . . so be didn 't k n o w (was i n n o j)ositioii to k n o w ) w h a t w o u l d \m\s
I igbt'. I a m n o w a t t a c k i n g , n o t the p r e s c r i p t i o n itself, b u t o n e o f two w h o l l y
o i h e r things: e i l h e r l l i e m a n ' s c r e d e i U i a l s , as i n the first two aiiswers, o r
his g r o u n d s for p r e s c i i b i n g w h a l be d i d , as i n the s e c o n d two. I n d e e d , die
< ( j i i d i t i o n o f the gentiaiis is actually i r r e l e v a n t , e x c e p t as a n i n d i c a t i o n
54 Probahility
ot t h c s f o t h e r t h i n g s : o n e m i g h t say, ' H e d i d i i ' i k n o w . . . ' t-ven i n a c a s e
w h e r e h i s p r e s c r i p ü o n w a s i n fact s u c c e s s f u l ( ' I t was o n l y a l u c k y g u e s s ' ) .
E q u a l l y , w h e n I d a i n i t h a l h e was i n i s l a k e n , t h e cpiahty o l h i s c r e d e n l i a l s
a n d r e a s o n i n g is i n e l e v a n t : ' I l e t h o n g l u h e k n e w w h a t w o n l d p u t inattei-s
r i g h t , a n d n o o n e c o u l d b e b e l t e r q u a l i í i e d o r i n a b e t t e r p o s i t l o n to say,
b n t h e was i n i s l a k e n n e v e r t h e l e s s . '
I b p u l t h i s briefly: t h e p h r a s e ' H e d i d n ' t k n o w ' s e r v e s to a t t a c k t h e
c h i i i n as orignially mnde, w h e r e a s t h e p h r a s e ' H e was n i i s t a k e n ' s e m - s to
c o r r e c t it in tíie light of suhseqwnt enents. I n p r a c t í c e , w e r e c o g n i s e a c l e a r
d i s t i n c t i o n I ) e t w e e n a n ' i n i p r o p e r ' d a i i n to k n o w s o n i e t h i n g , a n d a d a i n i
w h i c i i s n b s e ( | u e n t l y t u r n s o u t to b e ' i n i s t a k e n ' . O i t i c i s n i d e s i g n e d to
a t t a c k ( d i s c r e c H t , c a n c o ! o n t ) a c h i i n i to k n o w o r t o h a v e k n o w n s o m o t h i n g ,
as o p p o s e d to c o r r e c t i n g ( n i o d i í y i n g , r e v i s i n g ) it i n t h e l i g h t o f e v e n t s ,
n n i s t p i o c e e d i n t h e íirst p l a c e by a t t a c k i n g , n o t t h e c o n c h i s i o n c l a i n i e d
as k n o w n , but t h e a r g u n i e i U l e a c ü n g u|) l o it o r l l i e q u a l i l i c a l i o n s o f t h e
m a n m a k i n g t h e c l a i m . S h o w i n g i h a t a c l a i m to k n o w s o m e t h i n g p r o v e d
in l l u - e v e n i a i n i s l a k e n o n e m a y d o n o t h i n g a l a l l t o w a r d s s h o w i n g t h a t
il was a l t h e t i m e a n i i n | ) r t ) p e r c l a i m to m a k e .
T h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n ' I l setiiied p r o b a b l e , b u l it l u i n e d o u t o t h e i -
w i s e ' a n d ' I l was p r o b a b l e , t h o u g h w e f a i l e d to r e a l i s e i l ' is a p a r a l l e l
o n e . A u i n s u r a i u e c o i i i p a n y m a y be [)rei)ared lo ask only a siiiall p r e -
n i i u n i l i o i i i a m a n o f lliirty w h o m they u i i d e r s t a n d from tlieir inspectiiig
d o c t o r to h a v e c h r o n i c l i e a r t I r o u b l e , i n e x c h a i i g e f o r a n a n n u i t y p o l i c y
i n a l m i i i g a l a g e 8 0 ; for t h e y will a r g ü e , r e a s o n a b l y e n o i i g l i , that h e i s v e r y
i m l i k e l y l o live that l o n g . B u l w h a t i f h e d o e s ? W h a t a r e t h e y to say 011 his
8<)tli b i r t h d a y , as l l u - c l i i e f a c c o u n t a n t a d d s h i s s i g n a t u r e l o t h e H i s l o f
maiiy sizeable cheques?
T h i s ( l e p e i i d s 011 i h e c i n u m s t a n c e s : two p o s s i b i l i l i e s i n p a r t i c u l a r m n s t
b e l o i n a r k e d o n . It inay b e that a d v a n c c s i n i n e d i ( a l s c i e i u e, u n f o i i - s e e u
a n d u n f o r e s e e a b l e at t h e t i m o w h e n t h e p o l i c y w a s i s s i i e d , h a v e i n t h e
t o u i s e o f i h e i n l e i - v e n i n g fifly y e a r s r e v o l i i l i o n i s e d t h e t r e a ü n e n t o f t h i s
iyi)e o f l i e a r t d i s e a s e , a n d s o (as w e m i g h l i n fact ])nt i l ) i n c r e a s e d l l u -
m a n ' s c h a n c o s o f l i v i n g to o i g h i y . I n t h i s c a s e , l l i o d i r o c l o i s o f t h e c o m -
pany will casi u o aspersions o n the d a t a a n d c o m p u l a t i o n s originally
enii)loyod i n fixing the ])ieiiiinni if they admit lo haviiig under-estiniated
h i s c h a n c e s o f l i v i n g s o l o n g , s a y i n g , ' I t . s e e i n e d l o u s at that t i m o , f o r
t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s , e x t r o m e l y i n i j i r o b a b l o t h a t h e w o n l d Uve t h a l
l o n g ; but i n i h o e v e n t o u r e s t í m a t e h a s p r o v e d m i s t a k e n . ' I x j o k i n g b a c k
over the receñí records o f the c o m p a n y , they m a y n o w p r o d u c e a revised
estímate, c o n e s p o n d i n g lo the esliinate they w o n l d originally have n i a d e .
Improper Claims and Mistaken Claims 55
( o u l d t h e y h a v o k n o w n t h e n a l l that w e a r o i n a p o s i ü o n to k n o w now
.iboiit t h e p r o g i e s s m e d i c i n e was l o i n a k e i n t h e i n t e r v e n i n g y e a r s — t h i s
llioy w i l l r e f e r to as t h e c h a n c o h e a e t u a l l y was to h a v e o f l i v i n g l o eighty,
as o p p o s e d l o t h a l w h i c h at t h e t i m e it s e e m e d l u - w o n l d . ( I h i s c a s e is
l i k e t h e o n e s i n w h i c h w e say, ' H e t h o u g l i t h e k n e w , b i u h e w a s m i s t a k e n ' ,
w h e n w e r e v i s e a n d c o n o c í a p a s t c l a i m w i t h o u l s e e k i n g to c r i t i c i s e ils
propriety.)
. M t o i n a t i v e l y , t h a t w h i c h was l e s j j o n s i b l e f o r t h e d i s c r e p a n c y between
i h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n a n d t h e e v e n t m a y h a v e b e e n , not s o i n i i c h t h e a d v a n c e
o f m e d i c i n e , as s o m e f a u l l i n tlu- o r i g i n a l d a l a o r c o m p u i a t i o n . O i i l o o k -
i n g i n l o t h e i i i a t l e r , t h e y m a y b e l e d to a n y o f s e v e r a l c o n c h i s i o n s : f o r
instaiu that h e b r i b o d t h e d o c t o r to say h e l i a d < h r o n i c l i e a r t d i s e a s e
w h e n he h a d not, o r that the doctor's report referred lo a i i o t h e r m a n
o f l l i o s a m e ñ a m e a n d got 011 l o h i s file by n i i s t a k e , o r that h i s was a n
ex( o | ) t i o n a l , s u l ) - a c u l o f o r n i o f t h e d i s e a s e w h i c h it is h a r d l o tell f r o m
t h e n o n i i a l o n e , 01, i n o l h o r c a s e s , t h a t t h e c l e r k l o o k e d a t t h e w r o n g
|jage o l f i g u r e s w h e n w o r k i i i g o u t b i s c h a n c o s , o r t h a l t h e i r t a b l e s f o r
fanii-woikeis woie based o n loo small a sam|)le.
I n lliese c i r c u m s t a n c e s , the d i r e c t o i ^ will have lo criticise the esiimate
as o r i g i n a l l y m a d e , a n d a d n i i t t h a t t h e c o m p a n y f a i l e d l o r e c o g n i s e at t h e
t i m e jiisi h o w l a r g o bis ( h a i i c ( - s o f s u r v i v a l w e i o : ' H i s c h a n c e s o f l i v i n g to
o i g h i y w o r o r o a l l y cinik- g o o d ; b u l , b e i i i g n i i s l e d by t h e d o c t o r , t h e c l e r k
o r t h e r e c o r d s , w e f a i l e d l o r e c o g n i s e t h i s . ' ( T h e p r e s e n t c a s e is l i k e t h o s e
i n wlii< Il w e say, ' H e d a i i n e d l o k n o w , b u l h e d i d n ' l ' : l l u - p r o p r i e t y o f t h e
o r i g i n a l c l a i m is b o i i i g a l l a c k e d , a n d t h e fa( I l l i a l it a l s o p r o v e d i n i s l a k o n
i n t h e e v e n t is o n l y i i u i d o n l a l . )
I b s u i i i n p : o v e r c l a i m s t h a l s o m e t h i n g is p r o b a b l e , as o v e r c l a i m s l o
k n o w s o m o t h i n g , we recognise i n ¡)ractice a difforonce betwoon attacking
a d a i i n as o r i g i n a l l y m a d o , a n d c o i r e c l i u g il i n t h e l i g h t of s u b s o c i u o n l
e v e n t s . O n c e a g a i n , we d i s t i n g i i i s h a d a i n i w h i c h was i m p r o p e r at t h e
l i m e il was m a d o f r o m o n e w h i c h s u b s e ( | n o i i i l y t u r n e d ont to h a v o b e e n
i n i s l a k o n ; a n d c r i t i c i s i i i d i r o c l o d a g a i n s i t h e d a i i n as o r i g i n a l l y m a d o m n s t
a t t a c k t h e ba( k i i i g o f l l i o c l a i m o r tlio ( j n a l i l i c a t i o i i s of t h e m a n wlio
m a d o i l — s h o w i n g t h a l i n t h e e v e n t it ¡ j i o v e d i n i s t a k e n m a y d o n o t h i n g
l o e s i a b l i s l i that il was a l t h e t i m o a n i m p r o p e r c l a i m l o m a k e .
B o í b i t ; w e g o 011 to d i s c u s s l l u - j ) l i i l o s o | ) l i i c a l i i i i p o i l a n c e o f l l i e s o d i s -
t i n c l i o n s , w e i n u s t t a k e a l o o k at a n o t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to
i h e m : b e t w e e n l l i e g r o u n d s r e q u i r e d a s b a c k i n g f o r a c l a i m , e i t h e r to
k n o w s o m e l l i i n g o r that s o m o t h i n g is ¡ j i o b a b l o , w h e n t h i s c l a i m is m a d e
a n d c o n s i d e r e d on dijjerenl occasiom.
50 • ' •••• ••• Pnéfíhitily
W h e n m y n e i g h b o u r n i a k e s h i s c l a i m to k n o w w h a t w i l l set m y g e n -
t i a n s l i g h t , t h e n , i f h i s c l a i m is to b e a j ) r o p e r o n e , h e m n s t b e s n r e of
t h i c e t l i i n g s : that h e h a s e n o n g h e x p e r i e n c e , o f f l o w e r s i n g e n e r a l a n d
o f a l p i n e s i n j i a r t i c u l a r , to l i e i n a p o s i t i o n to s p e a k ; t h a t h e h a s m a d e
a l l t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s a n d p e r f o n n e d a l l t h e tests w h i c h c a n r e a s o n a b l y b e
d e m a n d e d o f h i m ; a n d that t h e j n d g e m e n t h e b a s e s o n t h e s e o b s e r v a -
t i o n s is a r e a s o n a b l y c o n s i d e r e d o n e . P r o v i d e d t h a t t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s a r e
f u l í i l l e d , h e h a s c l o n e w h a t w e a r e e n ü t l e d to r e c p i i r e to e n s u r e that h i s
j u d g e m e n t is a i r u s t w o r t h y o n e , o n e w h i c h j j r o v i d e s a fit b a s i s f o r a c t i o n .
H e is t h e n e n l i t l e d to m a k e t h e ( l a i i n , ' I k n o w . . . ' a n d , u n l e s s w e m i s t n i s t
h i s j u d g e m e n t , w e c a n ecpially p r o p e i i y t a k e h i s w o r d f o r it a n d say, ' H e
k n o w s . . . ' . T h e f a c t t h a t t h e g e m n d i v e f o r m s 'tnistr/wr/Zí-y' a n d 'Jit b a s i s '
a r e n a t u r a l l y n s e d h e r e is i i n p o r t a n t .
T h e s a m e c o n s i d e r a t i o i i s a p i ) l y to t h e i n s n r a n c e c o m p a n y ' s c l a i m t h a l
t h e i r p r o s p e c t i v e c l i e n t is v e r y u n l i k e l y to live to eighty. T h e y a r e r e q u i r e d
to satisfy t h e i n s e l v e s t h a t t h e i r r e c o r d s a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y c o m p r e h e n s i v e to
p r o v i d e a r e l i a b l e g u i d e , that t h e d a t a abcíut t h e c l i e n t o n w h i c h t h e i r
e s i i m a t e is b a s e d a r e c o m p l e t e - a n d c o r r e c t , a n d that the- c o i n ] ) u l a l i o n
is d o n e w i t h o u l s l i p s . C i i v e n t h e s e t h i n g s , w e c a n a c c e p t t h e i r c l a i m as
a |)i()¡)er o n e , I b r t h e y l o o havc- e n s u r e d t h a t , i n t h e p r e s e n t state o l
k u o w l e c i g e , t h e e s t i m a l e is a i r u s t w o r t h y o n e .
W h e t h e r a p r e d i c t i o n i s u t t e r e d w i l h a l l y o u r a u t h o i i t y ('I knowthat p')
o r w i t h r e s e r v a t i o n s ( ' P r o b a b l y / > ' ) , t h e s i t u a t i o n is t h e s a m e . I f y o n h a v e
s l i o w n t h a l i h e r e is iioruno c o n c r e t e r e a s o n to s u p p o s e t h a l t h i s p a r t i c u l a r
preclic t i o n w i l l |)rove m i s t a k e n , w h e n s o m a n y o l l u - i s like- it h a v o s l o o d
t h e test of time-, a l l t h a t c a n n o w b e r e q u i r e d o f y o n b e f o r e m a k i n g t h e
c l a i m , ' I k n o w that // o r ' P r o b a b l y / / , h a s b e e n d o n o . I I a n y o n e is e v e i ' l o
a t t a c k the- pmpriely o f y o i i r | } r e d i c t i o n , o r say w i t h j u s l i c e , ' H e d a i m e d l o
k n o w , b u l h e d i d i i T o r ' H e f a i l e d to s e e h o w s m a l l i h e c h a n c e s w e r e ' , il
is t h i s c l a i m w h i c h h e w i l l h a v e to d i s c r e d i t .
r i i i s is a pe-rfectly p r a c t i c a l c l a i m , a n d it m n s t n o l b e c o n f n s e d w i l h
a n o t h e r , a n d d o a r l y f u l i l o o n e — i h o c l a i m t h a l y o u r | ) r e d i c l i o n c a n ro-
m a i n , despite- t h e |)assage o f t i m e , b e y o n d a l l r e a c h o f p o s s i b l e future
a m o n d m e n i ; that y o n c a n seo l o it n o w that t h e r e w i l l n o v e r b e a n y q u e s -
t i o n o f a s k i n g , i n t h e light o f f u t u r e e v e n t s , w h e t h e r a f t e r a l l y o u w e r e
n o t m i s t a k e n . F o r , as t i m e p a s s e s , t h e q u e s t i o n w h e U i e r t h e p r e d i c t i o n
rernains a t r u s t w o r t h y o n e c a n a l w a y s b e r e o p e n e d . B e t w e e n t h e t i m e of
t h e p r e d i c t i o n a n d t h e e v e n t il.self, f r e s h c o n s i d e r a t i o i i s m a y becomo
r e l e v a n t ( n o w di.scoveries a b o u t g e n t i a n s , n e w t r e a l m e n t s f o r h e a r t i r o u -
b l e ) a n d t h e b a c k i n g w h i c h m u s t b e c a l l e d for, i f t h e p r e d i c t i o n s a r e l o
The I.iih^rinlli nj l'wlxibiUty 57
l)( i ( - | ) o a t e d , m a y i n c o n s e q u e n c e b e c o m e m o r e s t r i n g e n t . F u i t h e r m o r e ,
allc-r t h e e v e n t i l s e l f h a s t a k e n p l a c e , o n e c a n c l i o c k w l i a l a e t u a l l y l i a p -
p o i i e d . S o , h o w e v e r p r o p e r t h e o r i g i n a l c l a i m to kniíw m a y h a v e b e e n ,
ulioii u t t e r e d , the r e t r o s j K c t i v e q u e s t i o n , 'Was h e l i g h l ? ' , c a n always be
r c ( o n s i d e r e d i n the light o f events, a n d the answer m a y in c o u r s e o f time
havo to b e m o d i f i e d .
/\11 I b i s s e e m s n a t u r a l e n o u g h , i f o n e c o m e s to it w i t h o u l i n e l e v a n t
p r o c o n c e p t i o n s . A f t e r a l l , i f it is t h e trushimthiness o f a p r e d i c t i on thal
we a r e c o n s i d e r i n g , t h e s t a n d a r d s o f c r i t i c i s m w h i c h a r o a p p r o p r i a l o ( t h e
g r o u n d s w h i c h it is r o a s o n a b l e to d e m a n d i n s u p p o r i o f i l ) m u s t b e ox-
| ) e c t e d l o d e p e n d o n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n w h i c h it is b o i n g j u d g o d , as
w e l l a s o n t h o s e i n w h i c h it was o r i g i n a l l y u t t e r e d . A t t h e l i m e a ] ) r e d i c t i o n
is u t t e r e d , it d o e s n o t o v e n m a k e s o n s o to i n d u c l e 'eyo-witnoss a c c o u n t s o f
l l i e e v e n t it-self a n i o i i g t h e e v i d e n c e d e m a n d e d i n s n p p o r t o f it: i f l l i i s d i d
m a k e s e n s e , it w o n l d b e w r o n g to c a l i t h e u t t e r a n c e a p r e d i c t i o n . B u t i f
we a s k o u r s o l v e s r e t r o d i c l i v e l y , a f t e r t h e e v e n t , w h e t h e r t h e c l a i m a e t u a l l y
| ) r o v i d o d a fit a n d p r o p e r basis f o r a c t i o n , it is o n l y r e a s o n a b l o f o r us to
<li-niaiid t h a l i l s h o u l d i n fact h a v e b e e n f u l f i l l e d .
H a s t h i s d i s c u s s i o i i a m o r a l ? I f w e a r e to k e e p c l e a r i n o u r n i i n d s a b o u t
k n o w l e d g e a n d p r o b a b i l i t y , we m u s t r e m e m b e r always to t a k e i n l o a c -
( o i m t t h e o c c a s i o n o n w h i c h a c l a i m is b e i n g j u d g o d , as w e l l as that o n
w h i c h it was u t t e r e d . I t is i d i e l o h o p e t h a t w h a t is t r u e o f c l a i m s o f t h e
f b r m s , '1 k n o w ' , ' H e k n o w s ' a n d ' I t is p r o b a b l e ' , w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y b e t r u e o f
( l a i m s o f t h e f o r m s , '1 k n o w ' , ' H e k n e w ' a n d ' I t was p r o b a b l e ' ; o r that w h a t
is truc- o f s i i c l i d a i m s w h e n c o n s i d e r e d b e f o r e t h e e v e n t w i l l iioce-ssarily b e
litio o f llieiii w h e n r e c o n s i d e r e d i n the l i g h l o f events. C l a i m s o f this k i n d
i a n n o l b e c o n s i d e r e d a n d j u d g e d subspecieaeteinilalis, 'from oulside timo'
as it w e r e : t h e s u p o r s i i l i o i i t h a l t h e y c a n m a y p l a y h a v o c w i l h t h e m o s l
c a r e f u l a i g u m o n l . s . J u s t t h o s e vital d i f f e r e n c e s a r e H a b l e l o b e o v e r l o o k e d ,
a n d just t h i s s u p e i s t i t i o n f o s l e r e d , i f o n e d i s c n s s e s p r o b a b i l i t y , k n o w l -
<'dgo a n d bolic-f i n t o r n i s o f a b s l r a c t n o n n s , i n s t e a d o f c o n s i d e r i n g t h e
vorbs a n d a d v e r b s f r o m w h i c h tliey d e r i v e t h e i r m e a n i u g .
T h e Labyrinth o f Probability
There c a n be n o d o u b t , therefore, o f the ])lnlosophical r e l e v a n c e of
ihe- d i s t i n c l i o n s to w h i c h I d r e w a t t o n t i o u i n c r i t i c i s i n g K n e a l o ' s o p e n -
i n g c h a p t e r , a n d Irieci l o m a p out i n t h e l a s l s e c l i o n — d i s t i n c l i o n s w h i c h
aro firiiily r o o l e d i n o u r e v e i y d a y w a y s o f i h i n k i n g , but w h i c h K n o a l e
g o e s o u t o f h i s w a y to d e n y . Phe q u e s t i o n s we musí n o w ask a r e , ñvsi.
 Probnhility
w l i a l is tlu- s p e c i a l i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e s e d i s t i n c t i o n s f o r t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f
probability; a n d secondly, w h e t h e r ihe direction o f K n e a l e ' s conceptual
e c c e n t n c i t i e s t b r o w s a n y l i g h l o n l l i e t h i n g s h e says a b o u t p r o b a b i l i t y a n d
'probabiliíicaiion'.
I t h i n k it is p o s s i b l e l o s e e , i n o u l l i n e a l a n y r a l e , h o w t h e a t t e n t i o n o f
phil<)so|)liers d i s c u s s i i i g t h i s s u b j e c i h a s c o m e l o b e f o c u s e d o n t h e w r o n g
q u e s t i o n s — a n d not just o u l l i e w r o n g o n e s , bnt o n wronfr'iuis. h\t
p h i l o s o | ) h i c a l dis( n s s i o n s a b o i i t | ) r o b a b i l i l y , t h e c h i e f b o g y h a s b e e n s i i l ) -
j e c t i v i s n i : that is to say, t h e v i e w t h a l s t a t e m e n t s e x p r e s s e d i n t e r m s o f p r o l ) -
ability are not about the o u l s i d e w o i l d , bnt a b o u l the s p e a k e r ' s a l l i l u d e
to, a n d b e l i e í s a b o u l t h e w o r l d . I ' h e o b j e c t o f t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s ' (jiiesi h a s
therefore b e e n lo íbinuilate a watertight d e f i n i ü o n o f tlie n o t i o n i n s u l l i -
c i e n l l y objeclive terms; a n d llie cpieslions from w h i c h discussión has l u -
g u i i h a v e b e e n ( j u e s t i o n s l i k e , ' W h a t ¿v P r o b a b i l i t y ? ' ' W h a t a r e |5robal)ility-
s t a t e m e n t s a/ioiit?' ' W h a l is t h e t r u e analysis of probability-staU'iiieiils?'
a n d ' W h a t d o t h e y expressí' K n e a l e e v i d e n d y feels t h a l , i h o n g h t h e s u l ) -
j e c t i v i s l ' s p o s i t i o n is grossly p a r a d o x i c a l , i h e c a s e f o r i b i s [ ) o s i l i o n is prima
Jnrie A s i r o n g o n e , f o r h e i n a k e s i l s r e f u l a t i o n bis l i i s l b u s i n e s s ; a n d h e
has n o tloubts a b o u t the p r o p e r starting-point:
ir, as seems rialm al, wc slari by c o n l i asiing probabilily-slaleriicnls with s t a U i i u n t s
ill whicli wc e x p i c s s knowledge, llie (|iiestioii imiiieclialely alises: ' W h a l llicn do
wc ex|)iess by prohabilily-slalciiU'iiLs?"*
A n d i i i d e e d , w h e n i b i s k i n d o f ( j u e s l i o n is a s k e d , w e a r e a l first at a l o s s ,
n o l k n o w i i i g ( j u i l e w h a l l o p o i n t to, q u i t e w h e r e to l o o k . L e t u s s e e w h y
this h a p p e u s .
I f y o u a s k m e w h a l t h e w e a l l i e r is g o i n g to d o , a n d l o o k i n g u p a l l l i e sky
1 re|)ly, ' T h e r e w i l l be r a i n i b i s e v e n i n g ' , t h e ( l u e s l i o n w h a l m y s t a t e i n e n l
is a b o u t , o r r e f e r s to, gives r i s e to n o p a r t i c u l a r p h i l o s o ¡ ) h i c a l difficulty.
T h e c o i n m o n - s e i i s e a n s w e r , ' T h e e v e n i n g ' s w e a t h e r ' , is a c c e p l a b l e to a l l ,
a n d i f I t u r n out to h a v e b e e n r i g h t ( s p o k e n Iruly, ] ) r e d i c t e d c o r r e ( l l y )
t h i s s e e m s v e r y ha|)j)ily a c c o u n l e d f o r by s a y i n g t h a l w h a l I p r e d i í l e d was
a f a c í — i n d e e d was ' a f a c t ' , a p e r f e c t l y d e f i n i t e ' f a c t ' a b o u t t h e e v e n i n g ' s
w e a t h e r : n a m e l y , ils r a i n i n g t h i s e v e n i n g . B n t i f I r e p l y i n s t e a d , " T h e r e
w i l l probably b e r a i n this e v e n i n g ' , p h i l o s o p h y a n d c o m m o n - s e n s e l e n d l o
p a r t c o m p a n y . T h o u g h t h e c o m m o n - s e n s e a n s w e r to t h e q u e s t i o n w h a l
I a m t a l k i n g about r e m a i n s ' t h e e v e n i n g ' s w e a t h e r ' , i j h i l o s o j j h e r s feel
s c r u p l e s a b o u t a c c e j i t i n g t h i s as a n a n s w e r . Yor if we tiy lo a n s w e r the
Of,. cu.!, 2, p. 3.
Thi' ¡Mbyrittlh of l'robabilily 59
<|ii('sii(>ii i n a n i i i T i n i t e l y s p e c i í i c way, w h a t a r e we to j i i c k o n ? B y i i s i i i g
IIK- word 'probably', I e x p l i c i l l y a v o i d t y i n g m y s e l f d o w i i j j o s i t i v e l y to
.ui\ p a r t i c u l a r i j r e d i c t i o n ((;.g. that it will r a i n t h i s e v e n i n g ) a n d s o , il
scí-ins, to a n y p a r t i c u l a r ' f a c t ' ; e v e n i f il d o e s n o t r a i n , I i i i a y l i n d s o m e
Icl-out ( ' T h e c l o u d s w e r e p i l i n g u p a l l i h e e v e n i n g , b n t d i d n ' t a e t u a l l y
( l i s c l i a r g e lili t h e y g o l a bit f u r t h e r i n l a n d : s l i l l , il was t o u c h - a n d - g o the
w h o l e t i m e ' ) ; s o w e a r e a p p a r e n l l y u n a b l e to p o i n t l o a n y o n e 'iliing'
a b o u t t h e e v e n i n g ' s w e a t h e r s u c h t h a t , i f it h a p p e n s , I s p o k e t r n i y a n d ,
il it d o e s n o l b a p p e n , I was w r o n g . T h i s d i s c o v e i y m a k e s u s f e e l that t h e
link with the f u t u r e ' , w h i c h we t h i n k o f — i h o u g l i lo o u r jeo|)ardy—as
p r e s e n t i n t h e c a s e o f p o s i t i v e p r e d i c t i o n s , h a s i n l l i e ca.se oí guarded
predictions b e e n i r r e p a r a b l y s e v e r e d ; a n d we are m u o m f o r t a b l e about
s a y i n g a n y l o n g e r that m y s t a l e i n e n t lefei-s to, is a b o u t , o r is c o n c e r n e d
with t h e e v e n i n g ' s w e a t h e r , s l i l l m o r e a b o u t s a y i n g t h a t it e x p r e s s e s a
f u t u r e fact. W e d r e a d t h e m e t a p h y s i c i a n ' s c h a l l e n g e to say what fact it
expresses.
I l a v i n g r e a c h e d this p o i n t , we are w i d e o p e n l o the subjectivist's attack.
1 le h a s i i o t i c e d o n e l l i i n g ( p e r l i a p s t h e o n l y o n e ) w h i c h is a l w a y s t h e c a s e
w h e n e v e r t h e w o r d '[)i<)bably', o r o n e o f iLs d e r i v a t i v e s , is u s e d c o r r e c d y :
e v e i y o n e w l i o says a n d i n e a n s ' P r o b a b l y p' d o e s believe coupdetilly that
•Viid i f l i l i s is t h e o n l y l l i i n g w h i c h is a l w a y s t h e c a s e , h e a r g ü e s , it m u s t l i k e -
wise b e iht: o n l y fact w h i c h t h e w o r d ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' c a n r e f e r to o r d e n o t e .
Ill a d v a n c i n g h i s d o c t r i n e t h a l t h e r e a l t o p i c o f probability-statements
is t h e s p e a k e r ' s ' s i r o n g b e l i e f l l i a l p\e c a n t h e r e f o r e c h a l l e n g e u s l o
|)oiiit l o a n y t h i n g e l s e : ' I f w h a t we m e a n by " p r o b a b i l i t y " i s n ' t thal, w h a t
is i l ? '
T h i s ( | u e s i i o i i p u t s u s i n a q u a n d a r y . O b v i o u s l y t h e r e is s o m e l l i i n g e x -
ireiiiely (¡ueer a b o u l the subjectivist's d o c t r i n e . D e g i e e s o f b e l i e f c a n i i o l
i)e a l l t h a l i n a t l e i , f o r o v e r m o s t issiies b e l i e f o f o n e d e g r e e is m o r e r o a s o n -
a b l e (is m o r e j u s t i f i e d , o u g l i t r a t h e r to b e h e l d ) t h a n b e l i e f o f a n o t h e r . A s
K n o a l e p u l s i i , ' W h e n a m a n s e e s a b l a c k c a l 011 h i s way l o a c a s i n o a n d says,
" I s h a l l p r o b a b l y w i n l o d a y : give m e y o u r n i o i i e y to p l a c o o n y o u r b o l i a l T ' ,
we d e c l i n e t h e i n v i l a l i o i i i f w e a r e p n i d e n l , e v e n a l t h o i i g h w e believe
l l i e m a n l o b e l i o n e s t . ' ' W h a l e v e r p r o b a b i l i t y is, w e w a n t l o say, il m u s t
be m o r e o b j e c l i v e i b a n t h e s u b j e c t i v i s t c a n a l l o w : " T h e e s s e n l i a l ] ) o i n l is
l l i a l t h e t h i n k i n g w h i c h l e a d s to t h e f o r m a t i o n o f r a l i o i i a l o p i n i ó n , l i k e
a n y o t h e r t h i n k i n g w o r t h t h e ñ a m e , discm)ers somcúúw^ independoiit of
i l i o u g h t . W e t h i n k a s w e o u g h t to t h i n k w h e n w e t h i n k o f t h i n g s as t h e y
()¡>. (il. s 2, p. 7.
()() Probahility
a n - i l l i c a l i l y ; a u c l t l i e r e is n o o t h e r s e n s e i n w h i c h it c a n b e s a i d that
w e o u g h t to Ü i i n k s o - a n d - s o . ' I n s t e a d oí s i i s p e c t i n g t h e i ) r o p r ¡ e t y oí t h e
( p i e s t i o n s , w h a t exartly m y s l a t e i i i e n t w a s a b o u t (as o [ ) ] ) o s e d , o f c o u r s e ,
to t h e ( o i n m o n - s e n s e a n s w e r ) , a n d w l i a t exaclly it is tliat we m e a n by t h i s
w o r d ' ] j i - o l j a b i H t y ' , we p r e s s o n w a r d s i n t o t h e m u r k : it s e e m s vital to find
a n a n s w e r o f s o m e k i n d to t h e s e ( p i e s t i o n s for, i f w e fail to d o s o , s h a l l w e
n o l b e l e t t i n g t h e c a s e g o l o t h e s u b j e c t i v i s t by d e í a u l t ?
W h e n w e b e g i n l o o k i n g a r o u n d l o s e e w h a t e x a c t l y to say p r o b a b i l i t y -
statements are about, sim|)ly i n virtue o f b e i n g probability-statenieiils,
several candidates present theinselves. The frequency wilh w h i c h events
o f the k i n d we are c o n s i d e r i n g l i a | ) p e n in s u c h c i i c i m i s l a n c e s : if we b e a r
i n m i n d w h a t g o e s o n i n life i n s n r a n c e o f i i c e s , t h i s s e e m s to h a v e s t r o n g
< laims. The p r o p o r l i o n w h i c h the event l i n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n r e p r e s e n i s
oí t h e n u m b e r oí a l l e r n a l i v e | ) o s s i b l e h a p p e n i n g s : w h e n we r e m e m b e r t h e
c a l c u l a t i o u s w e d i d at s c l i o o l a b o u l d i c e , p a c k s o f p l a y i n g - c a r d s , a n d b a g s
fiill o f c o l o u r e d b a l l s , t h i s i n its t u r n s e e m s a n a t i r a c l i v e s u g g e s t i o n . T h e
p h i l o s o p h y o f | ) r o b a b i l i l y , as t r a d i t i o n a l l y p r e s e n l e d , is l a r g e l y a m a l l e r o f
canva.ssing a n d c r i t i c i s i n g the q i i a l i f i c a t i o n s o f these a n d o t h e r c a n d i d a t e s .
F o r o n c e , h o w e v e r , let u s r e l r a i n f r o m p l u n g i n g a n y d e e p e r i n t o i h e
l a b y r i n t h : i f w e r e t n r n t h e way w e c a m e , w e c a n f i n d r e a s o n s f o r b e l i e v i n g
that o u r p r e s e n t d i l e m m a , w h i c h g i v e s t h e s e a r c h f o r t h e ' r e a l ' subje< 1-
m a t t e r oí p i o b a b i l i t y - s i a t e n u n t s i l s a p p e a r a u c e o f i m p o r t a n c e , is o n e o f
our own making.
T h e s e l e a s o n s a r e o f two k i n d s . I n t h e first p l a c e , t h e a b s t r a c t n o n n
' p r o b a b i l i t y ' — d e s p i l e w h a t w e l e a r n t at o u r k i n d e r g a r t e n s a b o u l n o i i i i s
b e i n g w o r d s Üial s t a n d f o r t h i n g s — n o t m e r e l y h a s n o t a n g i b l e c o i i n l e r -
p a r t , r e f e r e n t , dfsignaturn o r what you will, not merely does n o l ñ a m e a
t h i n g o f w h a l e v e r k i n d , b u l is a w o r d o f s u c h a type l l i a t it is n o n s e n s e
e v e n to l a l k a b o u t il as d e n o l i n g , s t a n d i n g for, o r n a m i i i g a n y t h i n g . T h e r e
a r e t h e r e f o r e i n s u p e r a b l e o b j e c ü o n s to a n y c a n d i d a t c f o r t h e d i s p n t e d
t i l l e ; a n d i n c o n s e q u e n c e , o v e r t h e q u e s t i o n what p r o b a b i l i t y - s l a t e m e n l s
are a b o u l , c o m m o n - s e n s e has the better o f philosoijhy. T h e r e c a n be
probabilily-stateinenis about the evening's weallier, about my expecta-
tion o f life, a b o u t the p e r f o r m a n c e o f a r a c e - h o r s e , the c o r r e c t n e s s o f
a s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r y , t h e i d e n t i l y o f a m n r d e r e r — i n fact, a n y s u b j e c i o n
w h i c h o n e c a n c o i n n i i t o n e s e l í , w i d i r e s e r v a t i o n s , t(j a n opinión—cpiiie
aiiart f r o m the g u a r d e d u n d e r t a k i n g s , c a u ü o u s e v a l u a t i o n s , a n d o t h e r
s o r t s o f <|ualified s t a t e i n e n i i n w h i c h t h e w o r d ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' c a n e q u a l l y
p r o p e i i y a p p e a r : e.g. ' A n d r e a M a n t e g n a w a s , i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , t h e m o s t
d i s l i n g u i s l i e d p a i n i e r o f Üie P a d u a u S c h o o l . '
Probability and Expectation 6a
C o n v e r s e l y , t h e r e is n o s p e c i a l t h i n g w h i c h a l l p r o b a b i l i t y - s t a t e m e n t s
i m i s t b e a b o u t , s i m p l y i n v i r t u e o f t h e fact that t h e y a r e probability-
s t a t e m e n t s . B y r e f i i s i i i g n o l o n l y to | ) r o d u c e a n y t h i n g as t h e u n i v e r s a l
a n s w e r l o i b i s ( p i e s t i o n b u l e v e n to c o u n l e n a n c e t l u ; p r o c h u t i o n o f o t h e r
answers, we d o not, accordingly, leave the subjectivist i n possession o f
the field: f o r i h e t h i n g w h i c h b e ])nls u p as a c a i u h d a t e is i n as b a d a
c a s e as a l l t h e o l h e i s . I l is t r u e that t h e s u b j e c t i v i s t m i s s e s t h e ¡K)inl o f
] ) r o b a b i l i t y - s t a t e m e n l s a n d that t h e y a r e , i n s o m e s e n s e , m o r e o b j e c l i v e
i b a n h e w i l l a l l o w , b u t two o t h e r p o i n t s m u s t b e r e i n a r k e d o n — f i r s t ,
that t h e o b j e c l i v i t y w h i c h t h e s u b j e c t i v i s t fails to p r o v i d e is n o t o f t h e
k i n d w h i c h ] ) h i l o s o p h e r s h a v e .sought; a n d s e c o n d , that t h e discovei-y o f
a t a n g i b l e designatum for d i e w o r d ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' , q u i t e a p a r t f r o m b e i n g a
d e l u s o r y C]uesl, w o i i l d i n n o way b e l ] ) to íill t h e g a j ) .
T h e s e lasl two [ j o i u t s m u s t b e a r g u e d i n o r d e r for, ií I i i n d e r s t a n d h i s
a r g n m e u l a r i g l i l , K n e a l e l e c o g n i s e s s o m e o f t h e f o r c é o f d i e first p o i n t
but e n t i i e l y m i s s e s t l i e s e c o n d .
Probability a n d Expectation
C o n s i d e r , first, i n w h a t k i n d s o f c o n t e x t t h e n o u n ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' e n t e r s o n r
langiiage. Sometinies ibe Meteorological Office, instead of saying, ' C l o u d
w i l l probably e x t e n d to t h e rest o f t h e c o u i i l r y d u r i n g t h e u i g h l ' , m a y say,
' ( ^ l o u d w i l l in all probahility e x t e n d . . . ' . By c l i o o s i n g this f o r m o f words
i n s t e a d o f l h e s l i o i l e r ' ] ) r o b a b l y ' , i h e y a r e u i i d e r s t o o d to w e a k e n t h e f o r c é
o f t h e t a c i l r e s e i v a l i o n , i m p l y i n g that t h e i n d i c a t i o n s a r e n o w v e r y n e a r l y
( l e a r e n o u g h f o r o n e to m a k e a p o s i t i v e p r e d i c t i o n ; a n d t h e y thereby
m a k e i l iie( e s s a i y f o r d i e m . s e l v e s to p r o d u c e a n u ) i e e l a b ó r a t e e x p l a n a t i o n
if t h e c l o u d fails l o t u r n u p as j j r e d i c t e d . P r o m i s e s a n d | ) r e d i c t i o n s o f t h e
í b r i n ' I n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y / / , as o p p o s i - d l o ' P r o b a b l y p', m u s t be f u l f i l l e d
nol only o n a l e a s o n a b l e p r o p o r l i o n o f o c c a s i o n s , bnt o n nearly all: if we
h a v e to fall b a c k a l a l l o f k ' i i o n e x c u s e s o r e x p l a n a l i o i i s , we c a n b e l o l d
l o be m o r e c a r e f u l b e f o r e c t ) n i n i i l t i u g o u r s e l v e s s o lar. A p a r t f r o m t h i s ,
howcíver, t h e r e is little d i f T e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two f o r m s : t h e p h r a s e ' i n
all p r o b a b i l i t y ' s e r v e s as a w/tofe a p u r p o s e o f U i e s a m e k i n d as t h e s i n g l e
word 'probably'.
L i k e w i s e w i t h s u c h p h r a s e s as, ' T h e b a l a n c e o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s suggests
that c l o u d w i l l e x t e n d . . . ' a n d " T h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t c l o u d w i l l e x t e n d . . . is
h i g h ' : i n < i t l i e r c a s e , t h e w o r d ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' g e t s its m e a n i n g as a p a r t
o f a [ ) h r a s e w h i c h s e r v e s as a whole a s i m i l a r p u i j i o s e to 'probably'.
E a c h o f t h e m e t a p h o r i c a l t u r n s o f p h r a s e , s i i g g e s t i n g , e.g., t h a t a p a i r
 6» Probahility Probability and Expectation .6»

o f w t ' i g l i i i i g - s c - a l f s w o n l d b e i i e e d e d i n o r d e r to a n s w e r s o o p e n a q u e s -
t i o n , is t a k e n as w e a k e n i n g o r s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e f o r c é o f t h e i n i p l i c i t
r e s e r v a t i o n s , s o m a k i n g t h e a s s e r t i o n i t s e l f e i t h e r m o r e o r less |)ositive
a n d f a i l u r e i n h i l l i l m e n t c o r r e s | ) o n d i n g l y less o r m o r e e x c u s a b l e . W h a t -
e v e r e l s e it d o e s , it c e r t a i n l y d o e s n o t i m p l y t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a thing
o r stuff c a l l e d ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' w h i c h c a n literally be w e i g h e d in a b a l a n c e .
( I I o w , t h e n , is it t h a t o n e c a n e x p r e s s p r o b a b i l i t i e s n u m e r i c a l l y ? T h i s is a
q u e s t i o n w e s h a l l r e t u r n to s h o r d y . )
W h e n w e a r e t a l k i n g a b o u l t h e i m | ) l i c a t i o n s o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s , as o p -
p o s e d to t h o s e o f i n j u r i e s , a n a p j x a l l o e x p e r i e n c e is n e i U i e r n e e d e d
i i o r e v e n m e a n i n g f n l . W e c a n talk o f e x p e r i e n c e t e a c h i n g u s t h a t t h e r e is
n o n e e d to d r e s s s u j i e r f i c i a l g r a z e s , o r to e x p e c t s h a d e t e i n p e i a l u r e s o f
105° F i n E n g l a n d ; but we c a n n o t s p e a k o f e x p e r i e n c e t e a c h i n g us that
t h e r e is n o n e e d l o e x p e c t t h e e x i r e m e l y u n l i k e l y , ñ o r o f e x p e r i e n c e t e a c h -
i n g US t h a l i h i n g s h a v i n g h i g h p r o b a b i l i t i e s a r e m o r e to b e e x i x - c l e d t h a n
t h o s e w i d i l o w o n e s . C o r r e s p o u d i n g l y , o n e c a n ask why, u n d e r w h a t c i r -

I f we c o n s i d e r o n l y phrases like ' i n all probability' a n d 'the balance c u m s t a n c e s , o r h o w w e k n o w t h a t d i e r e is n o n e e d to d r e s s s u p e r f i c i a l

o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s ' , t h e r e s e e m s little p o i n t i n t a l k i n g a b o u t p r o b a b i l i t y a n d g r a z e s ; b u t n o l why, u n d e r w h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r h o w we k i u ) w that t h e r e

p r o b a b i l i t i e s i n i s o l a t i o n ; a n d , ií t h e w o r d ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' n e v e r ai)¡)eared is n o n e e d l o e x p e c t d i e e x i r e m e l y u n l i k e l y . S u c h q u e s t i o n s d o n o t a i i s e

e x c e p t i n p h r a s e s w h i c h w e r e o b v i o u s l y e i t h e r u n i t í e s o r m e t a p h o i s, t h e r e about tniisms.

m i g h t b e less teui])tal¡oii t h a n t h e r e is to a s k w h a t — t a k e n ' b y itself-—that T h i s last f a c t j i r o v i d e s u s w i t h a test w i t h w h i c h w e c a n r u l e o u t a

W ( ; i ( l d e n o t e s . B i u t h e s i t u a t i o n is n i o i e c o m p l i c a t e d . S e u K i i c e s l i k e ' T h e l a i g e p r o p o r l i o n o f t h e s u g g e s t e d d e f i n i t i o i i s o f ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' : i f a tlefi-
p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e i r c o m i n g is n e g l i g i b l e ' r e m i n d us o f o t h e r s c i U e n c e s , i i i t i o i i is to b e a c c e [ ) t a b l e , it m u s t s h a r e at l e a s t i b i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c w i t h
s u c h as ' T h e i n j u r i e s h e s u s t a i n e d a i e n e g l i g i b l e ' ; a n d w e a r e therefore the w o r d d e í i n e d . A n y analysis o f ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' w h i c h n e g l e c l s this re-
i n c l i n e d to t a l k as t h o u g h p r o b a b i l i t i e s c o u l d b e d i s c u s s e d i n i s o l a U o n q u i r e i n e n l c o n i m i t s t h e g e n e r a l f a l l a c y w h i c h Cl. E . M o o r e has recog-
( j u i t e as s í ' u s i b l y as i n j i n i e s . nised in the field ol etliics, a n d c h r i s t e i i e d 'the naturalistic falhuy'.

T h i s u s e m b l a i u e is, h o w e v e i , m i s l e a d i n g . I f we .say, ' I ' h e i n j u r i e s h e |ust as it I x H o n i e s c l e a r t h a t ' r i g h t ' cannot be analysed in terms of

s u s t a i n e d a r e n e g l i g i b l e ' , w e m e a n t h a t ttw injuries t/ieniselvescan safely b e ( s a y ) p r o m i s e - k e e p i i i g a l o n e , w h e n o n e s e e s t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n s ' B u l is

l u g l e c t e d ; a n d , i f a s k e d h o w w e k n o w o r o n w h a t g r o u n d s w e say t h i s , l ) r o m i s e - k e e i ) i i i g r i g h t ? ' a n d ' B u l ought onc to k e e p o n e ' s p r o m i s e s ? ' a r e

w e c a n a p p e a l tf> e x p e r i e n c e , e x | ) l a i i h n g that experience has showu that a l a n y r a l e n o l t r i v i a l ; a n d that ' i m p o s s i b l e ' c a n n o t , e v e n i n i i i a l l i e m a t -

i n j u r i e s o f this type will h e a l t h e m s e l v e s w i d i o u t c o m p l i c a t í o n s . O n the i( s, b e a n a l y s e d s o l e l y i n t e n n s o f c o n t r a d i c t o r i n e s s , b e c a u s e t h e state-

o t h e r h a n d , i f w e .say, " I h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e i r c o m i n g is negligible', n i e n l that c o n l r a d i c l o i y s u p p o s i t i o n s a r e l o b e r u l e d o u t is m o r e iban

we m e a n s o m e l l i i n g o f a d i f f e i e n l k i n d . W h a l m a y safely b e neglected a l a u t o l o g y ; s o a l s o it b e c o m e s c l e a r that ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' c a n n o t b e a n a l -

i n t h i s c a s e is n o l t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e i r c o m i n g for, w h e n compared ysed in terms o f (say) íreciueiicies o r p r o p o r t i o n s o f a l l e r n a t i v e s a l o n e ,

w i t h I h e w h o l l y u n m y s l e r i o u s s l a t e m e n t , ' I t is safe to n e g l e c t h i s i n j u r i e s ' , when one n o t i c e s t h a t it is c e r t a i n l y n o t f r i v o l o u s l o a s k w h e d i e r , or

t h e s l a l e n u - n l , ' I t is safe to n e g l e c t " t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e i r c o m i n g " ' , is why, o r o v e r w h a t r a n g e o f c a s e s , o b s e r v e d f r e q u e n c i e s o r p r o [ M ) r t i o i i s

h a r d l y e v e n g r a i i i i i i a t i c a l E n g l i s l i ; r a t h e r , w h a l m a y safely b e n e g l e c t e d is of a l l e r n a t i v e s d o /;/ Jad jirovide i h e p r o p e r b a c k i n g for c l a i m s about

t h e preparations agaitist t h e i r c o m i n g — a n d t h i s is s u r e l y w h a t w e a r e m e a n i p r o b a b i l i t i e s — i . e . c l a i m s a b o u t w h a t is t o b e e x p e c t e d , r e c k o i i e d w i t h ,

l o i i n d e r s t a n d . T h e s e i i l e i i c e , ' T h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e i r c o m i n g is n e g l i g i - a n d so o n . T o attempt to d e f i n e w h a t is m e a n l by t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of

b l e " , is i n | ) r a c t i c e less l i k e " I ' h e i n j u r i e s h e s u s t a i n e d a r e n e g l i g i b l e ' t h a n an event in terms o f such things is to c o n f u s e the m e a n i n g oí the

it is l i k e ' T h e dangerjrom h i s i n j u r i e s is n e g l i g i b l e . ' B o t h s e n t e n c e s m u s t t e m í '¡jrobability' w i l h d i e g r o u n d s for r e g a r d i i i g i h e e v e n t as p r o b a -

b e u n d e r s t o o d b y r e f c i e n c e to Ü i e i r p r a c t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s , n a m e l y , that ble, i.e. w i t h t h e g r o u n d s for e x p e c t i n g i l ; a n d , w h a t e v e r we d o o r do

h i s i n j u r i e s a r e s u c h that c o m [ ) l i c a l i o n s n e e d n o l b e f e a r e d o r guarded not m e a n by ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' , w h e t h e r o r n o i h e w o r d c a n p i o p e r l y s t a n d 011

a g a i n s t , o r t h a l u u d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e i r c o m i n g is s o m e t h i n g d i a l ils o w n , t h e s e two t h i n g s a r e c e r t a i n l y d i s t i n c t . A s w i t h s o m a n y o f t h o s e

n e e d n o t b e e x p e c t e d , f e a r e d o r p r e p a r e d for. I'he w o r d ' d a n g e i ' , like abstract n o n n s f o n n e d f r o m g e m n d i v e adjectives w h i c h have puzzled

' p r o b a b i l i t y ' , is m o s t a l l i ó m e i n w h o l e | ) h r a s e s — e . g . dangei o/compli- philosophers down llie a g e s — n o u n s like 'gocxhiess', 'inilh', 'beauty',

c a t i o n s , d e a l h by d r o w n i n g o r b a n k r u i M c y , / r o w i n j u r i e s , a m a d b u l l o r l i g h l n e s s ' , 'valué' a n d ' v a l i d i t y ' — t h e s e a r c h for a tangible countei|)art

h i g h - t e n s i o n c a b l e s , toliíe a n d l i n i b , j x - a c e o r n a v i g a t i o n . for d i e w o r d ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' , o n c e b e g u n , is l x > u n d to b e e n d l e s s : w h a t e v e r

64 Probability
f r e s h c a i u l i d a l e is p r o p o s e d , M o o r e ' s fatal q u e s t i o n s c a n b e a s k e d a b o u l
tluit a l s o .
l o say tliat t h e l e r u i ' ] ) r f ) b a b i l i t y ' c a n n o t b e a n a l y s e d i n t e n n s o f fre-
q u e n c i e s o r p r o p o r t i o n s o f a l t e r n a l i v e s is n o t , h o w e v e r , to say that t h e
r o l e o f d i e s e t h i n g s i n t h e p r a c t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s is n o t
a n iniportant o n e , a n d o n e w h i c h needs clariíication. R a t h e r the l e -
v e r s e ; f o r it s h o w s that t h e y a r e to b e r e g a r d e d , n o t as r i v a l d a i m a n l s
to a tínsel c r o w n — e a c h c l a i n i i n g to b e t h e r e a l desigiiatum o f the w o r d
' p r o b a b i l i t y ' — b i u as d i f f e r e n t l y p e s o f g r o u n d s , e i t h e r o f w h i c h c a n pro[>-
e r l y b e a | ) | ) e a l e d l o , i n a | ) p r o | ) n a t e c o u t e x t s a n d c i r c u i n s l a n c e s , as b a c k -
i n g f o r a c l a i m that s o m e d i i n g is p r o b a b l e o r h a s a p r o b a b i ü t y o f d ú s o r
thal m a g n i l u d e .
I b i s a l o i K (• r a i s e s t h e v e i y i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n , w h a t ' i t is a b o u t s o m e
ca.ses a n d c o n l e x i s that m a k e s o b s e i v e d f r e q u e n c i e s t h e r e l e v a n t k i n d s o f
g r o u n d s to a p p e a l to, a n d w h y p r o p o r t i o n s o f a l t e n i a l i v e s a r e t h e i h i n g s
to l o o k foi i l l o l h e i - s . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n h a s s o m e t h i n g to d o w i t h t h e dif-
f e r e n c e betwc-eii objets trovvés AWÚ e v e n t s b e y o n d o u r c o u l r o l o n t h e o n e
h a n d , a n d the producís o f m a n u f a c t u r e o n the ollier. I h e p e í fect d i e ' o f
o u r a l g é b r a l e c a l c u l a t i o u s is b o t h a d i e o r e ü c a l i d e a l a n d a i i i a n u f a c t u r e r s '
s p e c i l i c a t i o n . I n a p p l y i n g the results o f o u r c a l c u l a t i o u s a b o u l ratios o f a l -
ternalives lo a n a c t u a l d i e , we take I b r g r a n l e d thal llie n i a k e r s s u c c e e d e d
n e a r e n o u g h i n r e a c l i i n g i b i s i d e a l , a n d t h i s a s s u i i i p i i o i i is i i s i i a l l y d o s e
e n o u g h f o r p r a c t i c a l p n r p o s e s . B u t i f a l l o u r chce g r e w o n t r e e s , i n s t e a d
o f b e i n g m a d e by s k i l l e d e n g i n e e r s , we m i g h t w e l l feel il i i e c e s s a i y l o
test l l i e m i n t h e l a b o i a t o i y b e f o r e u s e a n d s o e i i d n j ) t a l k i n g a b o u t the
c h a n c e s w i t h d i c e , l o o , as i i i i i c h i n t e n n s o f f r e q u e n c i e s as i n t e n n s o f
p r o p o r t i o n s oí a l t e r n a l i v e s .
W h i l e we ar<- o n t h i s p o i n t we c a n a í f o r d l o i n ( | u i r e w h y t h e d e í i n i t i o i i s
in t e r m s o f f r e q u e n c i e s a n d p r o p o r t i o n s o f alternalives have ¡jioved so
attractive. I n part, this s e e m s lo be the l e s u l t o f a n excessive respect for
i i i a t h e n i a l i c s ; s o il is w o n l i r e n i i i i d i n g o u r s e l v e s t h a l t h e s u i i i s w e d i d i n
a l g e b r a a b o u t ' t h e p r o b a b i l i t y oí ( I r a w i i i g two s u c c e s s i v e b l a c k b a l l s íroiii a
b a g ' w e r e as i i u i c l i pureswnK as t h o s e o t h e r s a b o u t ' t h e t i m e t a k e n by f o u r
m e i i tt) d i g a d i l c h ;^ ft. x ;^ ít. x (5 ft.'. T h e f o m i e r h a v e n o m o r e i n t i i i i a l e
a c o n n e c t i o i i w i l h probability, a n d i h r o w n o m o r e light o n what we mmii
by d i e l e n n , t h a n t h e l a t t e r h a v e to d o w i d i t i m e o r i l s m e l a p h y s i c a l
status.
T h e a t t e m p t to f i n d s o m e ' l l i i n g ' , i n t e n n s o f w h i c h w e c a n a i i a l y s e
the solitaiy w o r d 'probability' a n d w h i c h all probability-slatcmeiiLs what-
e v e r c a n b e t h o u g h t o f as r e a l l y b e i n g a b o u t , t u r n s o u t t h e r e f o r e to b e a
Probability and Expectation
i i i i s l a k e . T h i s d o e s n o t i m p l y t h a t n o m e a n i n g c a n b e g i v e n to t h e t e m í :
' i J i o b a b i l i t y ' h a s a p e r f e c t l y g o o d m e a n i n g , to b e d i s c o v e r e d by e x a i i i i n -
i i i g t h e way i n w h i c h t h e w o r d is u s e d i n e v e i y d a y a n d s c i e n t i í i c coutexis
• i l i k e , i n s u c h p h r a s e s as t h e r e is a h i g h | ) r o b a b i l i t y , o r a j j r o b a b i l i t y o f
4 / 5 , t h a t . . . ' a n d ' i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y ' . It is w i t h s u c h a n e x a i n i n a t i o n t h a t
we iiiust b e g i n t h e p l i i l o s o | ) h y o f ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' , r a t h e r i b a n w i t h ( j u e s t i o n s
l i k e ' W h a l is P r o b a b i l i t y ? ' a n d W h a t d o | ) H ) b a b i l i l y - s t a l e i i i e n t s e x p r e s s ? ' ,
i l ' w e a r e n o t to s U u t o í f o n t h e w r o n g f o o t . I b say i h a t a s t a l e n i e i i t is a
p r o b a b i l i t y - s t a t e n i e n t is 7iot to h n p l y t h a t d i e r e is s o m e o n e t h i n g w h i c h it
( a n be s a i d to b e a b o u t o r e x p r e s s . T h e r e is n o s i n g l e a n s w e r l o t h e cpies-
lioiis, ' W h a l d o pu)bability-statements express? W h a l are they about?'
S o m e express o n e diiiig: some another. S o m e are aboul to-niorrow's
weather: so m e about m y e x p e c i a t i o n o f life. I f w e insist 011 a iinique
a n s w e r , we d o s o a l o u r o w n risk.
T h e way i n whi< h a false start c a n q u e e r o i i r p i t c l i c o m e s o u t i f w e
(onsidei the s e c o n d point: die p r o b l e i n o f objectivity i n probability-
sialeinents. T h e r e are ( e r i a i n l y i i n p o r l a i i i reasons why the subjectivist's
a c c o u n l is d e í i c i e i i t a n d w h y w e f i n d it i i a l u i a l to d e s c r i b e | i r o b a b i l i t y (as
K n e a l e d o e s ) as s o m e t h i n g o b j e c l i v e , i i i d e i i e n d e n t o f t h o u g h t , w h i c h h a s
l o b e ' d i s c o v e r e d ' . B u t s o l o n g as w e b e g i n by l o o k i n g f o r t h e designatumoí
I h e t e m í ' { ) r o b a b i l i t y ' , we a r e h a b l e l o s u p p o s e t h a l il is i b i s w h i c h m u s t b e
I b i i n d if we a r e l o p r e s e r v e the objectivity o f p r o b a b i l i t y - s l a t e m e n l s . The
p r o b l e m o f j u s l i f y i n g o u r d e s c r i i i l i o n oí s u c h s t a t e m e n t s a s o b j e c l i v e t h u s
geis e n t a n g l e d f r o m the start w i l h d i e v a i n s e a r c h for the f e a l u r e o f the
w o r l d we r e f e r to by t l i i ' w o r d ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' . T h i s is q u i t e u i i n e c e s . s a i y , í b r
I h e o b j e c t i v i t y w e a e t u a l l y l e q u i r e is t)l a v e r y d i f f e r e n t kind.
W h a t i l is, w e c a n r e n i i n d o u r s e l v e s i f w e r e c a l l h o w a n i i i s u r a n c e c o i i i -
l)any c o m e s l o d i s l i n g i i i s h b e t w e e n a n e s i i m a t e o f p r o b a b i l i t y w h i c h c a n
r e a s o n a b l y be r e l i e d 011 a n d a f a u l t y o r i i i c t J i r e c l o n e . I f t h e d o c l o i l i e s , 01
the C o m p u t e r niisreads the tables, o r the d a t a diemselves are inadeciuate,
t h e n t h e e s i i m a t e w h i c h Üie c o m p a n y w i l l m a k e o f a d i e n r s c h a n c e s o f
l i v i n g l o t h e a g e oí e i g h t y w i l l n o t \x as t r u s t w o r t h y a o n e as t h e y t l i i i i k ,
1101 as II u s l w o i l b y a o i u ' as they a r e c a p a b l e o f | ) r o t h i c i i i g . W h e n t h e e r r o r
c o m e s to l i g h t , t l i e r e í b r e , t h e y c a n d i s l i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t h e c l i e n t ' s ' r e a l '
d i a n c e o f l i v i n g to e i g h t y a n d t h e i r first, faiilty e s i i m a t e . A g a i n , w e saw h o w
as t h e y e a r s ¡lass a n d d i e r e l e v a n t í a c t o i s a l l e r d u y c o m e fiirdier to d i s l i n -
g u i s h b e t w e e n t h e best p o s s i b l e e s i i m a t e w h i c h w a s , o r i n d e e d c o u l d h a v e
b e e n m a d e w h e n llie policy was issiied, a n d the e s i i m a t e w h i c h they n o w
s e e i n t h e l i g h l o f s i i b s e q u e n t e v e i i l s w o n l d h a v e b e e n m o r e ti i i s t w o r t h y .
M e d i c i n e m a k e s u n e x p e c l e d l y r a p i d s U i d e s a n d i b i s type o f h e a r t d i s e a s e
66 Prohahilily
is m a s i c i i d , s o l l i o i r c l i i - i i T s c - x p c c t a t i o n o f l i f e i n c i e a s c s : t h e y t h e r e f o r e
( l i s t i i i g i i i s h t h e c h a n c e h e ' a e t u a l l y h a d ' , o r was to h a v e , o f l i v i n g to e i g h t y
f r o m t h e c h a n c e w h i c h i n t h e first p l a c e h e s e e m e d r e a s o n a b l y e n o u g h
to h a v e . h i e i t h e r c a s e , tlu-y d o s o b e c a u s e it is t h e i r b u s i n e s s to p r o d u c e
e s t i m a t c s w h i c h c a n Ix- r e l i e d o n , a n d w h a t i m m e d i a t e l y c o n c e r n s t h e m is
t h e Irustworthivessoítheir estimates. T n i s t w o r t h i n e s s , reUability, these are
what d i s t i n g u i s h a n ' o b j e c t i v e ' estímate o f the c h a n c e s o f a n event f r o m
a mere- e x | i r e s s i o n o f c o n f i d e n t b e l i e f . A n d it is i n i g n o i i n g t h e n e e d f o r
e s t i m a t e s o f p r o b a b i l i t y to b e relial>le that d i e s u b j e c t i v i s t ( w h o talks o n l y
a b o u t d e g r e e s o f b e l i e f ) is a l f a u l l . WTiat f a c t o r s a r e r e l e v a n t , w h a t k i n d
o f d a s s i f i c a t i o n w i l l i n fa( I p i o v e m o s t r e l i a b l e , t h e s e a r e t h i n g s w h i c h
i n s u i a i u f ( ( ) m | ) a n i e s a n d ac l u a r i e s c a n di.scover o n l y i n t h e c o i u s e o f
t i m e , f r o m e x p e r i e n c e . B u t w h a t e v e r t l i e a n s w e r s to t h e s e q u e s t i o n s , w e
c e r t a i n l y n e e d not d e l a y a s k i n g t h e m u n t i l we h a v e f o u n d o u t d e f i n i l e l y
w h a t il is t h a l t h e w o r d ' | > r o b a b i l i l y ' d e n o t e s — i f we w e r e l o d o t h a l we
s h o u l d n e v e r b e i n a p o s i l i o n to a s k t h e m .
Probability-Relalionsaiid Piobabilifit ation
L e t U S r e t n r n l o t h e first c h a | ) t e r o f K n e a l e ' s Probability and Inductioii. V\
c a n n o w s e e h o w , i n s e e k i n g l o ¡ i r o v e that | i r o b a b i l i l y p o s s e s s e s a k i n d of
a l i n o s i t a n g i b l e o b j e c t i v i t y w h i c h it n e i l h e r c a n h a v e ñ o r n e e d s , K n e a l e
s a c r i l i c e s e v e n t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f that o t h e r o b j e c t i v i t y w h i c h we i n j i r a c l i c e
d e i n a n d a n d w h i c h m a k e s t h e n o t i o n o f p r o b a b i l i t y w h a t it is.
K n e a l e s e e s d e a r l y e n o u g h t h a l o n e c a n n o t Ireat | ) r o b a b i l i t y as a n i i i -
Irinsií ( h a r a c l e r , p o s s e s s e d by e v e i y ¡ i r o p o s i t i o n o r e v e n i w h i c h c a n e v e i
j i r o p e r l y b e s p o k e n o f as p r o b a b l e : ' N o p r o p o s i l i o n ( u n l e s s it is e i t l u r
a i r u i s m o r a n a b s u r d i l y ) c o n t a i n s i n i t s e l f a n y t h i n g l o i n d i c a l e that we
o u g h t l o h a v e a c e r l a i n d e g r e e o f c o n f i d e n c e i n i t ' " ' — a f t e r a l l , o n e |x i -
s o n m a y ¡ i r o p e r l y , i h o i i g h m i s l a k e n l y , r e g a r d as i i r o b a b l e w h a t another
e q u a l l y p i o p e r l y says is n i i l r u e . H e t h e r e f o r e a b a n d o n s t h e d e m a n d f o r
s o m e v/;/^/f t h i n g , w h i c h c a n b e c a l l e d ' / / i f - p r o b a b i l i t y o f a n e v e n t ' . B u l ,
r a t h e r t h a n a p p e a r l o s u r r e n d e i l o t h e s u b j e c t i v i s t , r a t h e r t h a n give u p as
vain the s e a r c h for that w h i c h all p r o b a b i l i t y - s l a t e m e n t s e x p r e s s , he ( u t s
h i s l o s s e s , a n d t l e f i n e s ' | ) i ( ) b a b i l i t y ' as a ' r e l a t i o n ' b e t w e e n t h e p r o p o s i -
l i o n g u a r d e d l y a s s e r l e d a n d t h e g r o u n d s f o r a s s e r t i n g it. A ' p r o b a l ) i l i l \
r e l a t i o n ' is s a i d to e x i s i b e t w e e n t h e e v i d e n c e a n d t h e p r o p o s i l i o n , a n d
t h e e v i d e n c e is s a i d l o ' p r o b a b i l i f y ' t h e p r o p o s i t i o n to s o m e d e g r e e o r
"' O//. 1, 2, p. 8. • llñtl. !i 3, p. lO.
Probability-Relations and Probabilifiration 67
o i h e i . 1 h e j i r o b a b i l i l y w h i c h we l a l k of a n e v e n t as p o s s e s s i n g is t h u s still
i h o u g h t o f as i i e i n g i n t h e n a l u r e o f a ' t h i n g ' ( s e , a n o b j e c ü v e r e l a t i o n ) ,
b u l it is n o w a n y o f a l a r g e n u m b e r o f d i f f e r e n t ' t h i n g s ' , a c c o r d i n g to
i h e e v i d e n c e at o n e ' s d i s p o s a l . If t h i s c o m e s as a s u i p r i s e , l l i a t , h e says, is
because ' o u r probability statements are c o m m o n l y e l l i p t i c a l ' antl the par-
ticular b a t c h o f evidence u n d e r s t o o d lo be relevant 'is not i m m e d i a t e l y
recognizable'."
K n e a l e ' s s u g g e s t i o n is a n u n l i a p p y une, for several reasons. Q u i t e apart
f r o m t h e c o n c e p t u a l e c c e n U i c i t i e s w h i c h it e n c o u r a g e s , it l e a d s h i m l o
d e n y to p r o b a b i l i t y t h e v e i y k i n d o f o b j e c t i v i t y w h i c h r e a l l y d o e s i n a l t e i .
W h e n an insuranee com|)any obtains ficsli information aboiu a d i e i i l a n d
i n t h e l i g h l o l i b i s i n f o r m a t i o n a n e w e s t i m a l e is m a d e o f h i s e x p e c t a t i e m
o f life, t h i s e s t í m a t e is c o m m o n l y s p o k e n o f as b e i n g a m o r e a c c u r a t e ( i . e .
m o r e tiuslworthy) estimale, a d o s e r a p p r o x i m a t i o n lo his actual c h a n c e
of s u n i v a l . I b i s p i e c e of iisage K n e a l e r e c o g n i s e s b u t c o n d e m i i s ; ' S o i n e -
l i i n e s i n s u c h a c a s e w e .speak a s d i o u g h t h e r e w e r e a s i n g l e p r o b a b i l i t y o f
Üie m a n ' s s u r v i v i n g . t o b e sixty, s o m e t h i n g i n d e i i e n d e n t o f a l l e v i d e n c e ,
a n d o u r s e c o n d e s i i m a t e w e r e b e t t e r i n t h e s e n s e o f l x * i n g n e a i e r to
i b i s s i n g l e p r o b a l ) i l i t y t h a n o u r fii-st. B u l i b i s v i e w is s u r e l y w r o n g . ' H e is
f b r c e d l o c o n d e n u i d i i s m o d e o f e x p r e s s i o i i b e c a u s e , i n h i s view, a f t e r d i s -
c o v e r i n g f r e s h e v i d e n c e , t h e i n s n r a n c e c o m | ) a n y is n o l o n g e r c o u c e r n e d
wilh the ,v«mí'probabilily-relalion—and s o c a n n o t s l i i c t l y c o r r e c t ils e s t i -
m a l e . I b i s is o n l y o n e s p e c i a l c a s e o f t h e g e n e r a l p a r a d o x i n t o w h i c h h e
is c h i v e n by h i s d c x t r i n e t h a t ' p r o b a b i l i t y is r e i a t i v e to e v i d e n c e ' . A c c o r d -
i n g l o h i m , w h e n e v e r two p e o p l e a r e i n p o s s e s s i o n o f d i f f e r e n t evidence,
t h e y c a n n o l b e s a i d to c o n i r a d i c t o n e a n o t h e r a b o u t t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f
a n e v e n t p — ( a n n o l ( l u a r r e l , a p p a r e n t l y , as l o h o w f a r o n e s h o u l d b e p r e -
p a r e d to act as t h o i i g h , a n d c o m m i t o n e s e l f to t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a l , p—for
they a r e l a l k i n g a b o u t d i í í e r e n t p r o b a b i l i t y - r e l a l i o i i s !
Kneale's d o i i r i n e does not even escape the 'naluralislic fallacy',
t h o u g h t h i s fact is p a i t l y o b s c u r e d by h i s t e n n i n o l o g y . F o r d i e r e a r e two
p o s s i b l e i n l e r | ) i e l a t i o u s o f w h a l h e says, o n e o f t h e m i m u x e n t , t h e o t h e r
f a l l a c i o u s , a n d h e s e e m s c o m m i l t e d l o t h e latter. I n t h e first p l a c e , o n e
m i g h l s u p p o s e that h e i n t e n c l e d u s l o r e g a r d ' r e c o g n i z i n g t h a l a l a r g e
d e g r e e o f p r o b a b i l i f i c a l i o n e x i s t s b e t w e e n , e.g., t h e e v i d e n c e that a m a n
o f t h i r l y h a s c h r o n i c h e a r t d i s e a s e , a n d i h e p r o p o s i l i o n that h e w i l l n o t
live l o e i g h t y ' as m e a n i n g t h e sanieds c o m i n g c o r r e c d y to t h e c o n c l u s i ó n
'' lliiíl. r, % p. C).
C.K Probahilily
l l i a l , i l l view o f l i i s p l i y s i c a l ( o i u l i t i o i i , W Í - ( a n n o l e x p e c t l i i i n l o live i h a l
l o n g ( i h o i i g h w e m u s t b e a r i n m i n d that i i n l o o o o f s u c h c a s e s d o e s
siagger o n ) ' . I f d i a l were the p r o p e r interpretalion, n o objection c o u l d
a r i s e , f o r d i e n b e w o n l d Ix» | } r e s e u l i i i g u s w i l h a p o s s i b l e , t b o u g h r o i i n d -
a b o i i t way o f e x p l a i n i n g t h e m e a n i n g o f p l u a s e s l i k e ' i b e r e is a s m a l l
p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t ' a n d ' i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y ' . B u t t h i s d o e s n o t s e e m to b e h i s
i i i t e i i t i o i i , for, i f il w e r e , t h e n o n e c o u l d n o l e v e n ask tlie ( i i i e s t i o i i w h i c h ,
a c c o r d i n g lo h i m , a n y a d e c p i a t e a n a l y s i s o f t h e p i o b a b i l i t y - i e l a t i o u m u s t
a n s w e r : n a m e l y , t h e q u e s t i o n , ' W h y is it r a t i o i i a l l o t a k e as a b a s i s f o r a c -
t i o n a | ) r o p o s i t i o i i (that h e w i l l n o l s n r v i v e ) w h i c h s t a n d s i n that r e l a d o n
( o f b e i n g l i i g l i l y p r o b a b i l i f i e d ) l o t h e e v i d e n c e at o u r dispo.sal?' F o r i b i s
w o n l d b e to ( i i i e r y a I r u i s i n , b e i n g o n l y a n e l a b ó r a t e way o f a s k i n g , ' W h y
n e e d w e n o t e x p e c t t h a t w h i c h is e x i r e m e l y u n l i k e l y ? '
T h e | ) r o b a b i l i l y - r o l a l i o n s o f w h i c h K n e a l e w r i t e s a r e t h e r e f o r e to b e
t h o u g l i l o f as í t o / H r / e i i l i l i e s , c o m i n g l o g i c a l l y I j e l w e e n d e i a i l e d e v i d e n c e
o f the prosjx-ctive client's age a n d |)liysical c o n d i t i o i i a n d the practical
m o r a l i h a t h e n e e d n o t b e e x | ) e c t e d to s n r v i v e ( t h o u g h o f c o u r s e o n e i n
a i h o u s a i i d d o e s ) . A l o n c e all the o b j e c i i o n s lo a n a l u r a l i s l i c definitioii
r e c u r . K v e i i i f c e r l a i n e i i l i l i e s always w e r e í o u n d b e l w e e n ' the e v i d e n c e
a n d the c o n c h i s i o n s we base o n i l , we c o u l d p r e s u m a b l y o n l y discoverfrom
i'xperienceÚvM, i n s o m e o r a l l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , they c a n reasonably be relied
o u as a g u i d e to t h e f i i l u i c , l i k e t h e g r e e i i c l o u d out a l s e a | ) r e s a g i n g a g a l e .
The words 'probability', p r o b a b l y ' a n d ' i n all |)robability' c o u l d n o m o r e
b e a n a l y s e d i n t e r m s o f s u c h e n t i n e s as t h e s e t h a n i n l e i iiis o f f r e q u e n c i e s
o r p r o p o r t i o n s o f allernatives, a n d for the same reasons. I n thal case
we c o u l d p r o p e i i y a s k t h e ( l u e s t i o n K n e a l e regareis a s i i i i p o i t a n i — w h y ,
w h e n o u r k n o w l e d g e is less t h a n w e c o u l d w i s h , it is r e a s o n a b l e to r e l y o n
| ) r o b a b i l i t y - i e l a l i o i i s b u l n o l o u m e r e Ix-lief. T h i s ( l u e s t i o n w o n l d n o w b e
n o i i K j i e trivial t h a n t h e ( l u e s l i o i i why, w h e n b i i l l e r a n d s u g a r a r e s l i o r i ,
il is r e a s o n a b l e to r e l y o n m a r g a r i i i e b u l n o t o n s a c c h a i i n e . l i i e a c h c a s e ,
h o w e v e r , l l i e q u e s t i o n w o i i l d h a v e to b e a n s w e r e d by a p p e a l e i t h e r l o
d i i e c I e x p e r i e n c e o r l o i n d e ] ) e n d e n l i n f o r i n a l i o i i , s u c h as t h a l m a r g a r i n e
( o n l a i n s e n o u g h íats a n d v i l a n i i i i s to b e a n o u r i s h i n g as w e l l as p a l a l a b l e
s u b s U t i i t e for b i i i t e r , w h e r e a s s a c c h a r i n e , t h o u g h it tastes s w e e t , h a s n o
i i u t i i l i v e v a l u é . D o e s K n e a l e i n l e i i d u s to r e g a r d | ) r o b a b i l i l y - i e l a l i o n s as
t h e v i t a i i i i n s o f p r o b a b i l i t y ? O n l y i f t h a l is h o w h e s e e s t h e m d o e s h i s
c r u c i a l ( p i e s l i o n a m o i i n t l o m o r e t h a n a t i u i s m ; b u l i n that c a s e there
is n o h o p e o f t h e i r | ) r o v i d i n g u s w i t h a n analysis of the term ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' .
N o a m o u n i o f talk a b o u l vitaiiiins, c a l o n e s , proteins a n d c a i i x j h y d r a t e s
a l o n e w i l l sei-ve to a n a l y s e w h a t t h e w o r d ' n o i i r i s l i i n g ' means.
Is the Word 'Prohahiiity' Aiiihigiioiis? «9
O n e ( l u e s t i o n K n e a l e leaves very o b s c u r e : namely, w h a l sort o f r o o i i i
h e s e e s f o r a n y t h i n g l o c o m e b e t w e e n t h e facts a b o u t a s i t i i a d o n a n d
t h e c h a n c e s w e c a n a l l o t to a n y f u t u r e e v e n t i n view o f t h e s e facLs. H e
appeai-s to I x - l i e v e t h a l t h e r e a r e l w o s u b s t a n t i a l i i i f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the
e v i d e n c e a n d t h e m o r a l , n o l just o n e , a n d c e r l a i n f e a l u i e s o f o u r u s a g e d o ,
it is t r u e , s i i g g e s t t h i s : w e say, e.g., ' H e ' s got c h r o n i c h e a r l - d i s e a s e a l thirty,
so t h e p r o b a b i l i t y that h e ' l l live to e i g h t y is low, so we n e e d n ' l reckon
o n h i s l i v i n g that l o n g . ' B u l , if a s k e d w h a l g r o u n d s we h a v e f o r i g n o i -
i n g d i e p o s s i b i l i t y o f b i s s u r v i v i n g , w e p o i n t i m m e d i a t e l y to h i s a g e a n d
j i h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n a n d to t h e statistícs: n o t h i n g s u b s t a n t i a l is a d d e d by
s a y i n g i n s t e a d , ' T h e r e is n o n e e d to r e c k o n o n h i s s i i m v i n g , heraiise ihe
p r o b a b i l i t y o f h i s d o i n g s o is low, because h e ' s got c h r o i i i ( heait-disease
at thirty.' T o p u t o u r r e a s o n s l i k e t h i s w o i i l d b e to p r e s e n t a n a r t i f i c i a l l y
elalx)rat£ a r g u m e n t , like saying, ' Y o u r c o u n t r y n e e d s Y - O - U , a n d Y - O - U
s|)ells you.'
Is t h e W o r d ' P r o b a b i l i t y ' A n i b i g u o u s ?
I h e c i i l i c i s m s w h i c h h a v e b e e n d i r e c l e d h e r e a g a i n s t K n e a l e ' s views o n
p r o b a b i l i t y m a y s e e m to b e u n n e c e s s a r i l y m i n u t e . M i n u t e t h e y p e r h a j i s
a r e ; but 1 shall Iry lo show both n o w a n d subse(|ueiitly h o w iiiii)orlant
it is f o r | ) l i i l ( ) s o | ) l i e i s to r e c o g n i s e a n d r e s p e c t t h e d i s l i n c t i o n s w h i c h we
h a v e h e r e b e e n p r e s s i i i g . K n e a l e ' s b o o k is as p a t i e n i a n d c l e a r - l i e a d e d
a c o i i t r i b u t i o n lo the l e c e n t controversy about the p h i l o s o p h y o f p r o l >
a b i l i l y as o n e c o u l d a s k , yet it s h o u l d b e c l e a r , I l i o | ) e , h o w far t h e v e i y
p r o b l e m s w i t h w h i c h h e c o n c e r n s h i m s e l f a r i s e as a resiilt o f i i i i s a p p r e -
lieiiding the true ( h a r a c l e r o f m o d a l terms like 'probably', 'probable'
a n d 'probability'. O n c e o n e has recognised h o w s u c h terms serve, char-
a c l e r i s t i c a l l y , l o q i i a l i f y t h e f o r c é o f o u r a s s e r l i o n s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s , it is
d i f l i c n l l a n y l o n g e r l o t a k e s e r i o u s l y t h e p u r s u i l o f a desigiiatuvi for t h e m .
T h e w h o l e i n t e r m i n a b l e d i s p u t e , o n e c a n n o t h e l p t h i n k i n g , kee[)s g o i n g
o n l y f o r s o l o n g as o n e c o n s t r u e s t h e s e t e n n s , n o t as t h e m o d a l t e n n s t h e y
a r e , but as s o m e t h i n g e l s e .
T h i s ( o i i c l u s i o n is foi c e d o u o n e e v e n m o r e s t r o n g l y i f o n e l o o k s a l t h e
writings o f P r o f e s s o r R u d o l f C a r n a p o n this subject. I n his b o o k , Logical
Foundatiovs of Probability, h e c o i i s i r i i c t s a n e l a b ó r a t e m a l l i e i i i a l i c a l systeiii
for h a n d l i n g t h e c o n c e p t o f p r o b a b i l i t y a n d ils c i ó s e l e l a l i o n s , a n d a l s o
gives u s h i s v i e w s a b o u t t h e l e a d i n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l ¡ i r o b l e m s to w h i c h t h i s
n o t i o n gives r i s e . F r o m t h e p h i l o s o i i l l i c a l part o f h i s b o o k , l w o l l i i i i g s i n
|)arlicular n e e d lo be discussed: a c e n t r a l distiiicUon w h i c h h e m a k e s a n d
,7b l'robahilily
insisis o n IK-IWC-CU lwo senses o f t h e w o r d '|)robabil¡ty' w h i c h i n his view
a r e u n f o r t u n a t e l y ' d e s i g n a t e d by t h e s a n i e f a m i l i a r b u t a m b i g u o u s w o r d ' ,
a n d also the a r g u m e n t s w h i c h h e o ñ e i ^ against a l l o w i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l
c o n s i d e r a t i o i i s to e i i t e r i n t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f p r o b a b i l i t y a n d r e l a t e d
subjects—arguments w h i c h h e w o n l d l i n d o u b t e d l y c o n s i d e r l o l d very
s t r o n g l y a g a i n s t t h e p o i n i o f v i e w a d o p t e d i n t h i s essay.
h i a d v a n c i n g h i s Iirst p o i n t , C a r n a p f m d s m a n y a l l i e s . K n e a l e h i m -
s e l f talks o f t h e r e being 'two s | ) e c i e s o l p r o b a b i l i t y . . . two s e n s e s of
"¡irobability", o n e applicable in matters o f c h a n c e , a n d the o t h e r applica-
b l e to t h e r e s u l t s o f i i i d u c t i o n ' . ' ' P r o f e s s o r J. O. U i i n s o n , l o o , h a s w i i t t e n
a jiaper about T w o Senses o f " P r o b a b l e " ' , advocaling a similar dislinc-
t i o n , a n d s o m e s u c h d i v i s i ó n h a s o í t e i i b e e n l i i i i t e d at by | ) l i i l o s o | ) l i e i s
f r o m F. P. R a n i s e y o n .
I l is easy e n o u g h , o f c o u r s e , to s h o w that t h e d a s s e s o f s i t u a t i o n i n
w h i c h w e m a k e u s e o f t h e w o r d ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' a n d its a f l i l i a l e s a r e m a n y
a n d varied. lint d o e s this m e a n that the w o r d has a c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y large
n i i m l x M o l i i u a n i n g s ? Wc f o i e s a w i n t h e first o f t h e s e essays, apropos
o f i i n p o s s i b i l i l y a n d possibility, t h e d a n g e r s o f j u n i ] ) i i i g t o o q u i c k l y l o
t h i s type o f c o i u l u s i o i i , a n d it is a c o n c l u s i ó n w h i c h l r i i i s o i i h a s h i m s e l f
e x p l i c i l l y r t j e c t e d i n t h e c a s e o f t h e w o r d ' g o o d ' . N o d o u b t w h e n I say,
' I l is h i g h i y p r o b a b h ' t h a l , i f y o u l l i i o w a d i c e lw<Mity l i m e s , t h e s e c i u e n c e
y o u g e l w i l l i n c l u i l e at least o n e s i x ' , I m e a n s o n i e l l i i n g d i f f e r e n t from
w h a t I d o i f I say, ' l i is h i g l i l y p r o b a b l e t h a t I l o d g k i n ' s e x p l a n a t i o n o f l l i e
r o l e o f p h o s p h o n i s i n n e i w u s c o i i d u c t i o n is t h e c o r r e c t o n e . ' B u t a r e
n o l t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i M l w e e n t h e s e two s t a l e n i e i i i s fully a c c o u n l e d f o r by
the d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the sorts o f i u q u i r y in (luestion?
B y i n s i s t i n g , i n a d d i t i o n , t h a l two s e n s e s o f ' p r o b a b l e ' a r e i i i v o l v e d ,
n o t h i n g is g a i n e d a n d s o n i e l l i i i i g is lost. I f y o u a r e c o n s i d e r i n g l l i e c o r -
r e c t n e s s Ol i i u O I r e c l i i e s s of a s c i e n t i f i c l i y p o l l i e s i s , t h e s o n of e v i d e n c e to
a j i p e a l l o is o f c o u r s e d i ñ e r e n t f r o m d i a t b e a r i n g o n a p r e d i c t i o n a b o u t
d i c e - l l i r o w i n g : i n parti( n i a r , d i e r e is a p l a c e f o r s u i i i s i n t h e l a t t e r < así- o f
a k i n d wliic h c o u l d h a r d l y c o m e i n t o t h e f o r m e i . B u t , u n l e s s we a r e o i u e
a g a i n l o c o n f u s e t h e g r o i i i i d s I b r l e g a r d i n g s o m e l l i i n g as p r o b a b l e w i l h
t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e s l a l e i n e i U t h a t it is p r o b a b l e , w e n e e d n o t g o o n to say
thal there a r e , in coiisec|uence, a n u m b e r ofdifTerent senses o f the words
' p r o b a b l e ' a n d ' j j r o b a b i l i l y ' . Ñ o r i n d e e d should v/v say d i i s , f o r t h e w o r d
' p r o b a b l e ' s e m ' s a s i m i l a r p u r p o s e i n b o t h s e i i i e i i c e s : i n e a c h ca.se, w h a l
is at i s s u e is t h e q u e s t i o n h o w f a r o n e o u g h t l o t a k e it, a n d c o m m i t o n e s e l f
()/). di. ij 3, p. 13; s (). p. 22.
/.V llw Word 'Prohnbilily'Ámbifriioiis? 7'
10 l l i e s l a l e m e n i , e i t h e r t h a l H o d g k i n ' s e x p l a n a t i o n is c o r r e c t , o r t h a t a
six will t u r n u p . S u p | ) o s e i n s t e a d Üiat o n e s a i d , ' I k n o w t h a t I l o d g k i n ' s
e x p l a n a t i o n is c o r r e c t ' , o r ' I k n o w l l i a t i f y o u t l i r o w i b i s d i c e I w e n t y t i m e s ,
i six will l u r n u p at least o i u e . ' H e r e a g a i n , t h e s o r i s o f e v i d e n c e r e l e v a n t
10 t h e l w o c l a i m s w i l l be v e r y d i f f e r e n t , b u t w i l l it t h e r e f o r e f o l l o w that o n e
is n o w u s i n g t h e w o r d ' k n o w ' i n t w o d i f í e r e n t s e n s e s ? A n d i n yet a n o t h e r ,
11 O n e says, as a i i i a l t e r o f m a l h e n i a t i c s , ' I k n o w t h a t l l i e s í p i a r e r o o l o f 2 is
i 11 a l i o n a r ? S u r e l y l l i e p l e a of a m b i g u i l y is i n b o t h c a s e s t o o e a s y a way o u t .
I n itself, t h e n , t h e r e is n o t h i n g i i n p r e c e d e n t e d i n C ^ r n a p ' s c l a i m t h a l
o n e s h o u l d d i s l i n g u i s h two s e n s e s o f t h e w o r d ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' , two differ-
e n t c o n c e | ) l s of p r o b a b i l i t y , to b e r e f e r r e d l o r e s p e c l i v e l y as ' p r o b a b i l i t y , '
a n d ' p r o b a b i l i t y ^ ' . O n t h e o n e h a n d , h e .says, w e h a v e a lofriral comcpt,
• p r o b a b i l i t y , ' , w h i c h r e p r e s e n l s the d e g r e e o f snpport d i a t a b o d y o f evi-
d e n c e gives l o a n h y | ) o t h e s i s ; o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w e h a v e a n empir'ualvon-
( c p l , p r o b a b i l i t y . ; ' , w h i c h is s i m p l y c o u c e r n e d w i l h t h e r e i a t i v e I r e t i u e n c y
o f events or things having o n e particular p i o p e r t y a n i o n g d i e m e m b e r s
o f t h e c l a s s o f e v e n t s tir t l i i n g s h a v i n g a n o t h e r p r o p e i t y . W h a l a r e n o v e l
a r e t h e e x a c l ways i n w h i c h C a r n a p u n d e i ^ i t a n d s this d i s t i n c t i o n , a n d i h e
l e i i g l l i to w h i c h h e is j j i e j i a r e d l o c a r i y it. F o r i n s t a i i c e , h e i i i s i s i s t h a l we
are h e r e c o n c e r n e d , n o l w i d i c o m p l e m e i i l a r y aspects o f a single c o n c e | ) -
l i o i i , b u l w i t h l w o ( i i i i t e d i s t i n c t s e n s e s o f t h e w o r d ' i i r o b a b i l i l y ' — a |)laiii
a m b i g u i l y , t h o u g h o n e o f w h i c h a n e l y i n o l o g i c a l e x | ) l a i i a t i o n c a n p e í lia|)s
be g i v e n . H e i n v i t e s u s l o c o i i c l u d e t h a t p h i l o s o p h e r s w h o h a v e p n z z l e d
o v e r t h e n o l i o i i o f j i r o b a b i l i t y w e r e s i i n | ) l y i i i i s l e d by t h i s a m b i g u i l y —
l a l k i n g a b o u l d i í f e i e n i t l i i n g s , as i n t h e c e l e b i a l e d d i s p u t e a b o u l t h e n a -
l u i i ' of j;/v t'/íw b e t w e e n L e i b u i z a n d D e s c a r t e s w h o (we c a n n o w s e e ) w e r e
i n a i n t a i n i n g i n o p | ) o s i t i o n to o n e a n o t h e r p e r f e c ü y c o m p a t i b l e t n i t h s ,
the o n e about i i i o n i e i i l u m , the t)tlier about kinetic eiiergy. O n e may
a g i e i - that a i i i e a s u i i ' o f c i o s s - p u r p o s e s e n t e l a i n l o m o s l d i s p u t e s o v e r
|)robability, a n d yet feel t h a t C a r i i a j ) over-states h i s cíise. N o l e v e r y d i s -
l i n c ü o i i w h i c h n e e d s d i a w i n g i n p h i l o s o p h y c a n p r o p e r l y b e p r e s e n l e d as
a d i s l i n c t i o n b e l w e e n diíferent senses o f a w o r d ; s u c h a p r e s e n t a t i o n , i n -
d e i - d , o f t e i i ( o i u e a l s t h e r e a l s o u r c e o f p l i i l o s o p l i i t a l d i l T u ully, a n d l e a v e s
o n e f e e l i n g t h a l o n e ' s a u t h e n l i c p r o b l e m h a s b e e n c o n j u r e d out of s i g h i .
C a í i i a p ' s a c c o u n l o f t h e way i n w h i c h e v i d e n c e c a n s u p ] ) o i t a s( i e i i t i f i c
t h e o r y neeeis l o b e c o n s i d e r e d s e p a i a l e l y . F o r l l i e i n o m e i i l , leí us c o n -
( é n t r a t e 011 b i s a l l e g e d d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n p r o b a b i l i t y , a n d p r o b a b i l i t y ^ ,
a n d s e e w h e t h e r t h e two t h i n g s a r e r e a l l y as d i f í e r e n t as h e p a i i i l s t h e m .
I b b e g i n w i t h |)robabilily.¿: t h e k e y q u e s t i o n we m u s t a s k is w h e t h e r t h e
word p r o b a b i l i t y ' is e v e r i n f a c í u s e d i n p r a c l i c e l o mean s i m p l y a l a l i o o r
 hobabil¡l\
i c h K i v r l r ( ' ( | u < i H y . N ' o d o u l ) ! it h a s l i e c i i tlu- p r a c d c c to s w v l h i s : v o n M i s e s ,
I b r i i i s t a n c e , d e c l a r e s that t h e l i i i i i t i n g v a l u é o f t h e r e i a t i v e f r e q u e n c y o f
t h i n g s o f c l a s s B a i n o n g t h i n g s o f c l a s s A is c a l l e d t h e ' ¡ i r o b a b i l i t y ' o f a n A ' s
b e i n g a B , a n d C a r n a ] ) follows h i m i n t h i s . B u t a g l a n c e at t h e way i n w h i c h
p i o b a b i l i l y t h e o i y is g i v e n a | ) r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a ü o n s h o u l d b e e n o u g h to
raise d o u b t s a b o u t this d i c t u m .
T o test t h e view, w e m a y c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g t a b l e :
I II III . w a r i a n t e d i n e x p e c ü i i g h i m l o s n r v i v e t h a t l o n g , b u l d i e i i i f o r m a t í o n that
" '^a'l^b 2821 0.109
b 32,318 2410 0.075
f l<),2()(j 785 0.047
L e t t h e figures i n t h e first c o l u m n r e p r e s e n t t h e n u m b e r s o f p e o p l e i n tlu
U n i t e d K i n g d o n i in sfxc ified categories ' ¿ ' a n d V , alive o n 1 J a n i i a r y
i()2o; a n d t h e figures i n t h e s e c o n d c o l u m n t h e nuinbei-s o f these s a m e
l ) e o p l e d y i i i g b e í b r e 1 j a n u a i y 1();5<). I n c o l u m n I I I a r e s l i o w i i t h e r a t i o s o f
the figures i n t h e two p r e v i o u s c o l u m n s . T h e q u e s ü o n w h i c h n o w n e e d s
to 1H' a s k e d is: ' W l i a t h e a d i n g a r e w e to p u t at t h e t o p o f c o l u m n i n ? '
W h a t , U) u s e v o i i M i s e s ' w o r d , a r e w e to rail the.se r a t i o s ?
T h e a n s w e r is that t h e r e is n o i m i c p i e l y a i i p r o p r i a t e h e a d i n g . W e a r e
n o l o b l i g e d l o ( a l l t h e ratios there tabiilated by a n y o n e ñ a m e : what w e
s h a l l i n fací c a l i t l i e i n will d e p e n d o n o u r r e a s o n s f o r b e i n g i n l e r e s t e d i n
t h e m , a n d i n |)arli( i i l a r o n t h e s o n o f m o r a l w e w i s h l o d r a w f r o m i h e i n .
C o n s i d e r t h r e e pos.sibiIilies. W e m a y b e s t a ü s t i c i a n s ; t h e t a b l e s h o w n m a y
b e , f o r U S , just a s a m p l e t a b l e o f vital s l a t i s t i c s ; a n d w e m a y b e i n l e r e s t e d
i n d i a w i u g n o m o r á i s f r o m it o t h e r t h a n i n a l h e m a t i c a l o n e s . I n that c a s e ,
a n a t u r a l h e a d i n g for c o l u m n i i i will b e ' P r o p o r i i o n a t e inortality over
the decade i()20-c)'. Aliernatively, we m a y be e n g a g e d o n research i n
s o c i a l m e d i c i n e ; i b e table m a y b e p r o v i d i n g u s w i l h a w a y o f a s s e s s i n g
t h e ¡jliysical c o n d i t i o n o f p e o j i l e i n t h e c l a s s e s 7/ a i u l V a y e a r a f i e r
t l i e e n d o f t h e F i r s t W o r l d W a r ; a n d w e m a y a c c o r d i n g l y b e i n t e r e s t e d iii
d r a w i n g f r o m t h e t a b l e m o r á i s looking bachimrds Xo t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e
d e c a d e . S i n c e we a r e n o w l a k i n g t h e tabulated ratios as a m e a s i i r e o f
p h y s i c a l c o n d i ü o n at d i i s t i m e , a n a t u r a l h e a d i n g w i l l b e ' S u s c e p t i b i l i t y o f
i i i e m b e i ^ o f g i v e n c l a s s at i . i . 2 0 ' . A g a i n , w e m a y b e a c t u a r l e s ; t h e t a b l e
s h o w n will t h e n b e a part o f o u r L i f e T a b l e s ; a n d w e s h a l l be i n t e r e s t e d i n
it fbr t h e s a k e o f t h e i n o r á i s w e c a n d r a w f r o m it o f AJorxoard-lookingV.iná.
T h e ratios Usted i n c o l u m n i i i will b e t a k e n as a m e a s u r e o f the c h a n c e s
w h i c h m e m b e r s o f e a c h class have o f s u r v i v i n g a fiirther t e n yeai-s, a n d
t h e n a t u r a l h e a d i n g w i l l 1K% e.g., ' P r o b a b i l i t y o f s u n i v a l till i . i . 4 0 ' .
As tbe Word 'Probability'Ambiguous? 78
T h e t e r m p r o b a b i l i t y ' , that is l o say, is n o t i n p r a c t i c e a l l o t t e d to r a t i o s
01 r e i a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s a s such: f r e q u e n c i e s w i l l b e s p o k e n o f a s j i i o b a -
b i l i t i e s o n l y s o f a r a s w e a r e u s i n g t h e m a s nwasures o f p r o b a b i l i t y w h e n
d r a w i n g m o r á i s a b o u l m a t t e r s o f fact a l p r e s e n t u n k u o w n . I n d e e d , e v e n
l o s p e a k o f r a t i o s a s p r o b a b i l i t i e s is a l r e a d y to h a v e t a k e n t h e vital l o g i -
c a l s t e p t o w a r d s t h e d r a w i n g o f s u c h a m o r a l ; t h e k n o w l e d g e that o n l y a
m i n u t e í'racliou o f s u l T e i e r s f r o m t h e d i s e a s e w h i c h j o n e s h a s c o n t r a c l e d
live t e n yeai-s is c e r t a i n l y t h e best o f rea.sons í b r s a y i n g t h a l w e a r e n o l
t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f h i s s u n i v i n g t h a l l o n g is m i n u t e eiitailsÚrAi (oncliision.
A c c o r d i n g l y , w e c a n pulí voii Mises u p for d e d a r i n g t h a l bis l i m i t i n g r a -
l l o s a r e s i m p l y crtZ/í-rf ' j i r o b a b i l i t i e s ' : ií i b i s is i n t e i i d e d a s a n a n a l y s i s o f o u r
e x i s ú n g i i o d o i i o f p r o b a b i l i t y , i l is faulty, a n d , ¡ f i t is i u l e i i d e d a s a stiji-
iilative d e f i n i t i o n , it is a m o s t u u h a p p y o n e — b e s h o u l d say, r a t h e r , that
t h e s e l a t i o s a r e a measure of Úiv p r o b a b i l i t y of, say, a n /Vs b e i n g a li. I l is
i n l e r e s i i n g l o r e n i a r k that L a p l a c e , i n e x p o u n d i n g the da.ssical t h e o i y o f
p r o b a b i l i t y , a v o i d e d d i i s tra|). l i e i n i r o d u c e d t h e l a t i o ' f a v o i n a b l e / t o t a l
n u m b e r o f c a s e s ' n o t a s a d e f i n i l i o n o f p r o b a b i l i l v , but a s g i v i n g a m e a s u r e
o f d e g r e e of ¡ i r o b a b i l i t y a n d h e n e e o f o u r esperance morale; a n d i h o u g h h e
d i d r e f e r l o t h i s e x p r e s s i o n a s a d e f i n i t i o n l a t e r i n h i s t r e a U s e , h e m a d e it
d e a r t h a l t h e w o r d w a s i n t e n d e d i n a w i d e s e n s e , to m a r k il o l f as a n o p -
e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i U o n o r ' m e a s u r e ' r a t h e r t h a n as a p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n a l y s i s
or diclionaiy entiy.
T h e s e c o n d l e g o f C a r i i a p ' s d i s t i n c t i o n is t h e r e f o r e sliaky. F r e q u e n c i e s
are c a l l e d probabilities only w h e n u s e d as su|)ports f o r qualiíied p r e d i c -
t i o n s , |)ra( t i c a l p o l i c i e s a n d t h e l i k e , s o that frequency' is n o t a s e n s e
oí i h e t e r m ' | ) r o b a b i l i t y ' a l a l l , a n d h i s a c c o u i i t o f probability.^ is i i n -
a c c e p t a b l e . K v e i i w h e r e a l l o\n ( a l c u l a l i o n s a r e c o i i d u c l e d i n t e r n i s o f
l i e < i u e i i c i e s , t h e c o n c l u s i ó n , ' S o t h e j i i o b a b i l i i y o f h is s o - a n d - s o ' , d o e s
i n o r e i b a n r e p o n t h e a n s w e r to a s u i i i : its p o i n t is to d r a w f r o m t h e s u m
i h e p r a c f i c a l m o r a l , ' S o o n e is e n l i t l e d to b a n k o n h to s u c h - a i i - e x i e n t ' ,
a n d t h e p h r a s e ' b a n k 011' c a n h e r e b e r e a d i n a m o r e o r less l i t e r a l o r
figuialive i i i a n i i e i , a c c o n ü n g as i h e c o n s e t i i i e n l policies are o f a f i n a n c i a l
k i n d — a s wilh actuaries a n d p u n t é i s — o r otherwise.
Difíidilties also aiise over C a r n a p ' s discussion o f p i o b a b i l i l y , . L i k e
Kneale, h e coiisiders thal statements o f d i e form " F b e probability o f
// is s o - a n d - s o ' a r e e l l i p t i c a l , s i n c e t h e y o n i i l a l l e x p l i c i t r e f e r e n c c to
the batch o f e v i d e n c e i n the light o f w h i c h the jjiobability was e s ü -
n i a t e d . L i k e K n e a l e a g a i n , h e p r e f e r s to lesei-ve t h e t e r m probability
í b r l l i e r e l a t i o n I x l w e e n a n l i y p o t h e s i s , h, a n d t h e e v i d e n c e bearing
74 ProbabUity
on i l , I', a n d I r c a l s t h e t e i i n as a h i n c l i o r i o i two s e p á r a t e variables,
í a i i d h.
I b i s is o n e o f t h e e c c e n t r i c i d e s w e r e m a r k e d o n e a r i i e r i n d i s c u s s i n g
K n e a l e ' s v i e w s : as w e saw t h e n , t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f a n e v e n t is n o r n i a l l y
regarded as o n e t h i n g , the supi)oit w h i c h a p a r t i c u l a r b a t c h o f evi-
d e n c e g i v e s tí) t h e v i e w t h a t t h e e v e n t w i l l t a k e p l a c e as a n o t h e r , a n d
K n e a l e ' s a( l o u n t c o n c e a l s t h e d i l T e i e i K e s b e l w e e n t h e m . To t a l k a b o u t
e v i d i n l i a l s u | ) p o r i is oj course talk b t ) l h a b o u t h y i K J t h e s i s a n d a b o u l
evidence, a n d different batches o f evidence lend diffeienl degiees of
s n p p o r t to t h e s a i n e h y j i o t h e s i s . U n l i k e p r o b a b i l i t y as w e n o n n a l l y u n d e i -
s t a n d it, t b e n o t i o n o l s n p p o r t n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e s two v a r i a b l e s : t h e r e
is always that w h i c h s u p p o r t s a n d t h a l w h i c h is s u p ] ) o r t e d . S o il is n o t
s i i r p r i s i n g t h a t C a r n a p h a s to u s e s u c h w o r d s as ' s n p p o r t ' i n t h e c o u r s e o f
his e x p l a n a l i o i i o f [jrobability,. T h i s fact is s i i g g e s l i v e . M u c l i confusión
andcross-piii|K)ses w o u l d have b e e n avoided ifCarna¡)'s])robabilily,,and
t h e c o n e s p o n d i n g l e l a l i o n s i n t r e a t i s e s f r o m K e y u e s o n w a r d s to K n e a l e ,
batí b e e n l a b e l l e d ' s u p p o r t - r e l a t i o n s ' a n d n o t ' p r o b a b i l i l y - i e l a U o u s ' a l
all. l i l i s c h a i i g e w o u l d i n n o way affect t h e i n a l h e m a t i c a l a n d formal
s i d e o i l l i e dis( u s s i o i i s ; but il w o u l d m a k e t h e i r i i i l e i p r e l a l i o n a i h o u s a u d
t i m e s m o r e f e l i c i t o u s . M a n y o f u s w i l l n e v e r a g r e e t h a t ¡ i r o b a b i l i t y is r e i a -
tive l o e v i d e n c e i n a n y m o r e i b a n a u e | ) i g r a i i i i i i a t i c s e n s e ; b u t w e w o u l d
a g r e e i i i s l a n i l y that snppori w a s , i n l l i e n a l u r e o f t h e c a s e , a f u n c d o n as
i n u c h o f e v i d e n c e as o f c o n c l u s i ó n . lí a n y t h i n g liei<' is e l l i p t i c a l , it is n o l
s o i n i i c h t h e e v e r y d a y w o r d ' p r o b a b l e ' as t h e j a r g o n p h r a s e s ' p r o b a b i l i t y -
cal( i i l u s ' , ' p r o b a b i l i t y - r e l a l i o n ' a n d ' p r o b a b i l i f i c a l i o n ' . /Vs K n e a l e h i m s e l l
has recognised, the formal pro|)erlies of a calciilus alone c a n n o l eiilitle
it to t h e ñ a m e o f ' t h e p r o b a b i l i t y - í a l c u l n s ' : it m u s t r a t h e r b e t h e c a l c i i l u s
suitable for use i n e s t i m a t i n g p r o b a b i l i ü e s — i n e s t i i n a ü n g , t h a l is, h o w
m i K 11 r e l i a n c e w e a r e e n l i t l e d to p l a c e o n t h i s o r that l i y p o t b e s i s .
l u this r e s p e c t s u p p o r t - r e l a t i o n s a r e i n t h e s a m e b o a l as f r e q u e n c i e s .
We do n o l i n p r a ( t i c e give t h e ñ a m e o f ' p r o b a b i l i t i e s ' to d e g r e e s o l
s n p | ) o i l a u d c o n l i i i n a t i o n a s s u c h : o n l y s o far as we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n
h y | ) ( ) l l i e s i s /t, a n d t b e total e v i d e n c e w e h a v e a t o u r d i s p o s a l is e, d o e s l l i e
s u p [ ) o r t - r e l a t i o n h a v i n g h a n d e as its a r g u m e n t s b e c o m e a m e a s u r e o f
t h e p r o b a b i l i t y w e a r e e n t i d e d to a l l o t to Ii. W i t h s u p | ) o r t - r e l a t i o n s as w i t h
f r e q u e n c i e s , t h e c o n c l u s i ó n w e c o m e to a b o u t /( i n t h e l i g h l o f t h e e v i -
d e n c e - a t o u r d i s j j o s a l , e, n a m e l y , that wt- a r e e n l i t l e d to b a n k s o far o n A,
is n o m e r e r e p e ü t i o n o f t h e s n p p o r t w h i c h « g i v e s to k it is o n c e a g a i n a
moraldrawri from it. T h e e f l e c i o f w i i l i i i g t h e e v i d e n c e i n t o a l l p r o b a b i l i l y -
e s t i m a t e s is l o c o n c e a l t h e vital l o g i c a l s t e p , f r o m a h y p o l h e t i c a l s l a t e i n e i i t
Is tlu- Woid 'Probability'Ambiguousf
a b o u t t b e I x ' a r i n g o f f o n /í l o a c a l e g o r i c a l c o n c l u s i ó n a b o u t li—from the
i n l e r e n c e - l i c e n c e , ' E v i d e n c e e, i f a v a i l a b l e , w o u l d s u g g e s t v e r y strongly
that h', to a n a r g u m e n t i n w h i c h it is a e t u a l l y a p p l i e d , n a m e l y 'e, s o v e r y
l i k e l y //. W e a r e , o f c o u i - s e , at l i l x ' i i y i f w e c h o o s e l o rail t h e b e a r i n g o f f o n
h by t h e ñ a m e o f ' p r o b a b i l i f i c a l i o n ' ; but it is as w e l l to r e a l i s e l l u - d a n g e r s
w e e x p o s e o u r s e l v e s to b y s u c h a s t r a i n e d — n o t to say e l l i p t i c a l — c h o l e e
o f terms.
O n c e we have d i s l i n g u i s l i e d the probability o f h f r o m tlu- I x - a r i n g
o f e o n h o r t h e s n p p o r t w h i c h e gives to /t, w e c a n s e e t h e s a y i n g l l i a l
' P r o b a b i l i t y is R e l a ü v e to E v i d e n c e ' f o r d i e e p i g r a m it is. C e r t a i n l y t h e
mosl reasonable estimale a m a n c a n m a k e o f the probability o f some
l i y ] ) o l h e s i s d e p e n d s i n e v e i y ca.se o n t h e e v i d e n c e at h i s d i s p o s a l — n o t
just a n y b a t c h h e c h c x j s e s to c o n s i d e r , b n t all t h e r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e he
h a s a c c e s s t o — b u l e q u a l l y , i l d<-])ends o n t h e s a m e b o d y o f c-v iden ce
w h e t h e r h e c a n r e a s o n a b l y c o i i c l u d e t h a l a g i v e n s i a t e i i i e i i l is true. To p u t
t h e | X ) i i i l i n o t h e r w o r d s , it d e p e n d s o n t h e e v i d e n c e a m a n h a s at h i s
d i s p o s a l w h i c h o f t h e ¡lossibilities h e c o n s i d e i s a r e l o be a c c e | ) t e d w i t h
( o i n p l e l e trust ( a c c e p t e d as t n i e ) a n d w b a l w<-iglil l u - is «-ntilled l o i m l
o n t h e o t h e r s ( h o w p r o b a b l e h e s h o u l d c o n s i d e r tlie-in). I n e a c h case-, i h e
reasonable conclusión is d i a t w h i c h is w a r r a n t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e , a n d
l l i e t e n n s ' b e a r i n g ' , ' s i i p p o r t ' a n d t h e l i k e a r e l l i e o n e s w e u s e to m a r k
t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e s t a t e m e n t s c i l e d a s e v i d e i i e e a n d t h e ]M)ssibililies
whe)se r e i a t i v e c r e d i b i l i l i e s a r e I x ' i i i g e-xamiiie-d. Ilowe-ver, a l l that g o e s
h e r e f o r ' p r o b a b l e ' ge)e>s a l s o f o r ' t r u e ' ; s o i f w e a e c e p t ' P r o b a b i l i t y is
R e i a t i v e to E v i d e n c e - ' as m o r e t h a n a n e'])igraiii, t h e n we a r e s a d d l e d w i l h
' r r u l h is R e i a t i v e le) E v i d e n c e ' as w e l l . I f i b i s h a s b e e n overle)oke-d, it is
I x - c a i i s e o f t h e u i i h a p p y p r a c t í c e w h i c h h a s g r o w n u p a m o n g ph ile)sopliei-s
o f u s i n g the w o r d '¡irobability' i n t e i c l i a n g e a b l y with the w o r d s ' s u i ) p o i r
a n d ' b e a r i n g ' , a n d a l l r i b u d n g l o t b e first n o t i o n a l l t h e l o g i c a l ( e a l u r e s
c h a r a c l e - r i s l i c e)f t h e e j l l i e r two.
The fimdainental m i s t a k e is to s u p p o s e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t o f
w h i c h we- e s i i m a t e t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f s o m e v i e w m u s í always b e wrilte-n i n t o
l l u - e-sliinale- we- m a k e , i n s t e a d o f be-ing k e p l i n t h e bae k g r o u n d a n d a l -
l u e l e d le) o n l y i m p l i c i d y . I n fact, t h e r e a r e v e r y g o o d r e a s o n s f o r k e e p i n g il
i n the b a c k g r o u n d . T o b e g i n w i t h , the a r g u m e n t s for w r i t i u g the e v i d e n c e
i n l o pre)bability-esliniates, o n c e accepteel, must be exteiide-d: " I h e I n i l l i
o f bis s l a t e m e n t is b e y o n d d o u b t ' m u s t be s u p p l a n t e d o n C a r n a p a i u l
K n e a l e ' s p r i n c i p i e s by ' T h e t n i t h - v a l u e o f h i s s l a t e m e n t , o n the available
( v i d e n c c , is I ' a n d a s l a l e n i e n t w i l l h a v e l o b e a l t r i b i i t e d a s m a n y i r u l l i s
as t h e r e a r e p o s s i b l e h e x H e s o f e v i d e n c e b e a r i n g o n it.
76 Probability
C a r n a p h i m s e l f r e g a r e i s t r u t h as e x e m p t f r o m t h e r e l a t i v i t y to e v i d e n c e
w h i c h h e a t i r i b u t e s to ¡ i r o b a b i l i t y , . H i s r e a s o n s f o r t r e a t i n g t h e m s o dif-
ferently a r e i l h i m i n a t i n g , for they illustrate his e x t r e m e l y literal i n t e r p r e -
t a t i o n o f t h e ] j r i n c i | ) l e o f veriíiabilily. T l i i s e x p o s e s h i m to t h e íiill r i g o i i r s
of the fatal quesüon, Whal fact precisely do probability-statements
ex|)ress?', a n d s])rings p r e s u m a b l y f r o m his d e l e r m i n a t i o n lo d e a l only i n
c o n c e p t s ' a d m i s s i b l e for e i n p i r i c i s m a n d h e n e e for s c i e n c e ' . O u r use o f
' p r o b a b i l i l y i - s l a t e m e n t s ' , h e e x p l a i n s , is o s t e n s i b l y i n c o n s i s i e u t w i l h t b e
p r i n c i p i e o f v e r i f i a b i l i t y ; for, i f w e r e g a r d t h e s t a t e m e n t The chances of
r a i n l o m o r r o w a r e o n e i n l i v e ' as a v a r i e l y o f p r e d i c t i o n , w e c a n specify n o
h a p p e n i n g w h i c h w o u l d c o n c i n s i v e l y verify o r falsily i l . A c c o r d i n g l y his
p r i n c i p i e s c o m p e l h i m to c o n c l u d e , e i t h e r t h a t t h i s is ' a f a c t u a l (syntheüc)
s e n l e n c e w i t h o u t a s u l l i c i e n t e m p i i i c a l f o n n d a l i o n ' a n d so i n a d m i s s i b l e ,
o r e l s e that i l is n o t r e a l l y a f a c t u a l p r e d i c t i o n at a l l , but r a t h e r a p u i e l y
logical ( a n a l y U c ) s e n l e n c e , a n d so o f a k i n d w h i c h ' c a n n e v e r viólate
e m p i r i c i s m ' . C i i r n a p c h o o s e s t h e l a t t e r a l t e m a ü v e a n d it l e a d s h i m i n t o
paradoxes. H i U n e e d he really have e m b r a c e d e i t h e r conclusión?
T l u ; way o f e s c a p e I r o m h i s d i l e m m a w e h a v e a l r e a d y r e c o g n i s e d . O f
c o u r s e o n e c a n n o l s p e c i f y a n y h a p p e n i n g w h i c h w o u l d c o n c l u s i v e l y verify
o r falsify a p r e d i c t i o n h e l d o u t as h a v i n g o n l y a c e r l a i n p r o b a b i l i t y ; for
t h i s i s j n s t w b a l [ ) r o b a b i l i t y - l e r m s a r e u s e d l o e n s u i c . Yet s u c h a s l a l e m c í n l
n e e d b e n o n e t h e less i < s | H ' c t a b l e a n d n o n e t h e less of a p i e d l e t i o n .
I t c a n n o t Ix- s a i d to fail lo obtain the highesi l i o n o u r s (namely, veri-
fication) since' il is n o l e-ven a c a i i e l i d a t e f o r t h e m . I n t b e n a l u r e of t h e
c a s e , t h e e v i d e n c e reeiuiie-el l o j u s l i f y a p r e d i c t i e ) n (|ualiti(-d by l l u - ael-
v e r b ' p r o b a b l y ' o r a n a f l i l i a t e is l e s s t h a n w o n l d b e n e e d e d f o r a p o s i t i v e
o n e , a n d t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s l o w h i c h o n e is c o m m i t t e d b y m a k i n g i l a r e
w e a k e r — l o say t h a l t l u - c h a n c e s o f r a i n l o m o r r e ) w a r e o n e i n five is n o t
to .say positÍ7)fl.y that it e i t h e r w i l l o r w i l l n o l r a i n . O n l y s t a t e m e n t s w h i c l i
a r e h e l d o u t as t h e p o s i d v e t r u t h n e e d b e c r i ü c i s e d f o r s t r a i g l i l u n v e r i f i a -
bility: p r e d i c t i o n s m a d e w i t h a n e x p l i c i t e i u a l i f i c a t i o n , s u c h as ' | j r o b a b l y ' ,
' t h e c h a n c e s a r e ge)oel t h a l ' o r 'five to o n e a g a i n s t ' m u s t t b e r e f e i r e be
exempled.
Sej m u c h f o r C a r n a p ' s a l l e g e d d i s t í n c t i o n I j e t w e e n t h e two concepts
p r e ) b a b i l i l y , a n d probability..,. W e c a n s e e n o w w h y i l is far toei s t r o n g
f o r h i m l o t a l k o f t l u - w o r d ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' as a m b i g u t ) u s , a n d te) s u g g e s t
that p h i l o s o p h i c a l disputes a b o u t the n a t u r e o f probability are fulile a n d
i m n e ' e e s s a i y fe)r t h e s a m e rease)ns as t h e vis viva d i s p u t e . A e t u a l l y , state-
ments about t b e p r o b a b i l i t y e)f /; a r e c o n c e r n e d , i n p r a c t i c e , w i l h the
e x t e n t to w h i c h w e a r e e i u i d e d l o b a n k o n , t a k e i l i h a l , s u b s c r i b e l o , p u l
Probahility-Tlieory and Psyrhology 77
o u r w e i g l i t a n d o u r s l i i r t s on p, r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h e p h r a s e is u s e d
i n a way C a r n a p w o u l d s p e a k o f i n t e r m s o f p r o b a b i l i t y , e)r i n t e r m s o f
|)r()bal)ility.j. H i s e l e c i s i o n w h e t h e r to u s e t h e t e r m ' j ) r o b a b i l i l y i ' o r i h e
lelilí preibability.^' s e e m s i n d e e d to d e p e n d , n o l e)n t h e .sense i n whie h
l l i e w o r d ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' is b e i n g u s e d , f o r t h i s is t h e s a m e i n b o t h c a s e s , b u t
r a t h e r o n w h e t h e r h e is j ) a y i i i g a t l e i U i o n to t h e f o r m a l o r t h e s t a ü s ü c a l
,ispeéis o f t h e a r g u m e n t s i n s u p p o r i oí p.
'Probable', like gejexl' a n d ' c a i i i u ) ! ' , is a t e r m w h i c h k e e p s a n i n v a r i -
, i n ( f o r c é i l i i ü u g h o u l a wiele v a r i e l y e ^ f a j j p l i c a t i o n s . I t is c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d
w i l h l l u - i d e a o f e v i d e n t i a l s u p ] X ) r l , but is d i s d n c t f r o m that i d e a , f o r t h e
same- rease)ns that a c a l e g o r i c a l s l a t e m e n l ' A , s o B ' is d i s t i n c t í r o n i a liy-
potlietical o n e ' I f A , t h e n B ' , o r the c o n c l u s i ó n o f a n a r g u m e n t f r o m ils
b a c k i n g . I f w e g o l o t h e l e n g t l i o f ¿ífeH/(/>77(^snppe)rl w i t h |)re)babilily, t h e n
.niel o n l y t h e n w i l l the- l a t t e r l e r i i i bece)iiie a m b i g u o u s ; b n t genid s e n s e will
s u r e l y f o r b i d us io d o t h i s . A i n a t h e - i i i a t i c i a i i w h o r e a l l y ielentifie-d iiiipe)s-
s i b i l i i y a n e l c o i i i r a d i c t o r i n e s s w o u l d h a v e ne) we)rds w i l h w h i c h to r u l e o u t
( o i i t r a e l i c t i o n s f r o m b i s t h e e ) r i s i n g ; a n d by m a k i n g p r o b a b i l i t i e s i d e n t i c a l
w i l h e-vieleulial s i i p [ K ) r t we s h o u l d r o l ) o u r s e l v e - s of t l u - ve-iy t e r m s i n w h i c h
we at p r e s e n t d r a w p r a c t i c a l c o n c l u s i o n s f r o m s u p p o r t i n g e v i e l e n c e .
Probability-Theoiy a n d Psychology
W l i y h a s t h e a t t e n t i o n o f p h i l o s o j ) l i e r s be-e-ii d i s i i a c l e d f r o m t h e c h a r -
a e t e r i s l i c m o d a l f i i i i c l i o i i s o f w o r d s like- ' p r o b a b l e - ' ? a n d w h y h a v e they
alloweel t l u - n i s e l v e s l o b e s i d e t r a c k e d i n i b i s way i n l o t h e d i s c u s s i o n e)f ir-
1 e l e v a n l elis[)ules? O n e i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r , it a p p e a r s , is t h e i r p e r e n i i i a l f e a r
o f l a p s i n g i n l o psye he)le)gy. O n e c a n f i n d e-vieleiue o f t h i s m o t i v e a l w o r k
¡11 t h e w r i t i n g s l)e)tli e)f K n e a l e anel of C a r n a p . /\ we saw, l l u - s l a r t i n g - p o i n l
o f K n e a l e ' s a i g u m e - n t is t h e d a n g e r o f s u b j e c l i v i s n i — t h e t h i i i g w e musí
a b o v e a l l b e at [ ) a i n s to a v o i d , h e i m p l i e s , is t h e c o n c l u s i ó n thal lo lalk
al)e)iit p i e ) l ) a l ) i l i l i e s is to l a l k a l x ) U t o n e ' s a c t u a l s i r e n g t l i of b e l i e f , anel a
m a i i i virlue- o f ' p r o b a b i l i t y - r e l a t i e m s ' í b r h i m is the- lie)p(- that a p | ) e - a l i n g to
t h e s e r e l a t i o n s w i l l r e s e ñ e h i m f r o m t h e s i i b j e c ü v i s l ' s p i t . F o r C a r n a j ) , toe),
p s y c h o l o g y p r e ' s e n t s a n ever-le)e)ining e l a i i g e r ; b u t its d a n g e r s fe)r l l u - t l u ' -
o i y e)f p r e i b a b i l i l y ares i u h i s vie'w, e)nly e)ne s i d e o f a m o r e g e n e r a l dangeír
w h i c h it p r e s e n t s to l o g i c as a w h o l e . A t a l l c o s t s , h e a s s e r t s , t h e l o g i c i a n
musí avoid the d a n g e r s o f ' p s y c h o l o g i s m ' , a n d i n m a k i n g g o o d his esca|)e
I r o i i i t h i s w i d e r | ) e i i l h e is d i i v e i i o n c e a g a i n i n l o e x l r a v a g a n c e s which
K n e a l e avoids.
 l'rohnbilily
I.<I U S l o o k a u c l sc'c- w h a t K n e a l e h a s to say l i i s t . ' ' H e r e j e c t s , l i g h t l y
e n o u g h , t h e v i e w tliat s t a t e m e n t s i n t e n n s o f p r o b a b i l i t y h a v e to b e i m -
d e r s t o o d as t e l l i n g u s s i m p l y a b o u t t h e p r e s e n t s t r e n g t h o f t h e s p e a k e r ' s
I x ' l i e f s : u n f o i t i m a t e l y , h e t h i n k s that i n d i s m i s s i n g t h i s j e j u n e t h e o r y l u -
is o b l i g e d to r c j e e t c e r l a i n o l h e r p o i n t s o f view a l s o . F o r i n s l a n c c - , h e
discnsses very briefly o n e ' t r a d i d o n a l t r e a t m e n t ' o f s e n t e n c e s c o n t a i n i n g
words like ' p i o b a b l y ' — i i a n u - l y , thal in tenns o f ' m o d e s o r m a n n e r s o f
a s s e r t i o n ' ; t h i s l u - feels b o i u u l to d i s m i s s o n t h e g i o u i u l s that it too is
' a subjectivist t h e o r y ' . But n a m e - c a l l i n g gets o i u - n o w h e r e , a i u l the lalx-l
m n s t b e j u s t i f i e d . H i s o n l y ¡jositive a r g i m i e n t a g a i n s t t h i s p o i n t o f v i e w
d e p e i u l s u p o n t b e i d e a that ' i f I say, "it is p r o b a b l y r a i n i n g " , t h e d i s c o v e i y
that I U ) r a i n w a s í a l l i n g w o u l d not r e f u l e m y s l a t e m e n t ' , a r e n i a r k w h i c h
w e c r i t i c i s e d e a r i i e r I x j t h as p a r a d o x i c a l a n d as i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o u r c o i n -
m o n ways o f t h i n k i n g . O i i r o w n i i i c ] u i r i e s i n t h e s e essays, o n t h e o t h e r
h a n d , s t r o n g l y l e i n f o r c e t h e x i e w that ' p r o b a b l y ' a n d its c o g i i a t e s a r e ,
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , m o d a l c i u a l i f i e r s o f o u r a s s e r l i o n s : s o t h e c i u e s t i o i i for
u s m u s t b e , w h y K n e a l e s h o u l d o b j e c t to s u c h a u a i c o u i i t as a s u b j e c t i v i s t
o n e o r s e e it as c o n f u s i i i g l o g i c w i t h p s y c h o l o g y .
F i l i s i d e a s e c n i s to b e t h e l e s i i l t o f a p l a i i i i n i s u n d e i - s t a n d i n g : lc-1 m e
i n d í c a t e w h e r e t h i s l i e s . E a r i i e r i n t h i s essay, w e d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e t w e e n
t h e t l i i n g s w h i c h a n u t t e r a n c e p o s i t i v e l y statfs, a u d t h o s e w h i c h a r e n o t
s o m u c h s t a t e d by it as implied in i l . N e g l e c t o f i b i s d i s l i n c t i o n r e g u l a i i y
l e a d s o n e i n t o p h i l o s o p h i c al d i f l i c u l t i e s , a n d Kiiealc-"s ] ) r e s e i i t objc-( l i o n s
a p p e a r to a r i s e f r o m t h i s v e r y s o u r c e . W h e n t h e f o r e c a s t e r s assert t h a t
it w i l l r a i n l o m o r r o w , w h a t t h e y a r e l a l k i n g a b o u l is t o i n o r r o w ' s w e a i h e r
a n d n o l t h e i r o w n b e l i e f s , t h o u g h n o d o u b t oiic- c a n safely infc-r f r o m
t h e i r u t t e r a n c e d i a l they d o have beliefs o f a c e r t a i n k i n d . L i k e w i s e if i h e y
say, ' I l w i l l /jinhrihly r a i n l o m o r r o w ' , w h a t t h e y say is s o m e t h i n g a b o u t ibe
w e a t l i e r , a n d w b a l we c a n i i i f e r a b o u l t h e i r b e l i e f s is o n l y i i i i | ) l i c c l . Ilie
v i e w that t h e f n n c t i o n o f w o r d s l i k e ' p r o b a b l y ' is l o ciiialify t h e m o d e o f
o n e ' s a s s e r t í o n s o r c o n c l u s i o n s is o n e t h i n g : a ¡ i r o p o s a l that o n e s h o u l d
a n a l y s e t h e s i a t c i i u - i i t 'It will p r o b a b l y r a i n t o i i i o r r o w ' as eciiiivalc-iit l o '1
a m o n i h e w h o l e i i u l i n e d l o e x p e c t t h a l it will r a i n l o m o r r o w ' w o u l d bc-
s o m e l h i n g c p i i l e cUfferent.
T o say ' P r o b a b l y p' is to a s s e r t g u a r d e d l y , a n d / o r w i t h r e s e r v a t i o n s ,
that /r, it is nol l o assert that y o u a r e t e n t a t i v e l y [ ) r e p a r e d to a s s e r t that p.
If O u r p i e s c - n l a c c o u n l o f ' ] ) r o b a b l y ' a n d its c o g n a t e s is l o b e c r i t i c i s e d as
s u b j e c t i v i s t , o n e u i i g l i t as w e l l l e v e l t h e s a m e c r i t i c i s m a g a i n s t t h e d o c t r i n e
' I Of,. al. 1, 2. |). 3.
PtobahilUy-Tlieory and Psyrhology 79
d i a l a m a n w h o says, h o n e s t i y a n d s i n c e r e l y , 'p', i n a k e s t h e a s s e r ü o n t h a l
p. F o r a l l l i o u g h a m a n w h o says 'p' d o e s n o t p o s i t i v e l y a s s e r t t h a t h e is
p r e p a r e d to assert that p, h e cloes t h e r e b y s7/OT/»lhat h e is, a n d h e t h e r e b y
c-iiables u s to i n f e r f r o m w h a t h e says s o m e t h i n g a b o u l b i s p r e s e n t b e l i e f s
as s u r e l y as d o e s a m a n w h o says, n o t 'p\t ' P r o b a b l y p\r a s s e r ü o n ,
w h e t h e r p o s i t i v e o r g u a r d e d , is a b o u l t h e w o r l d o r a b o u l t h e state o f
m i n d o f t h e s p e a k e r as m u c h as t h e o t h e r : i f il is a mistake- l o r e g a r d
l l u - p o s i t i v e a s s e r t i o n as a s l a t e m e n t a b o u l t h e s¡w-ake-r's state o f m i n d
t h e n it is a l s o a m i s t a k e to r e g a r d t h e c i i i a l i f i e d a s s e r t i o n i n i b i s way. I n
fact, e-itlu-r a s s e r t i o n '/»' o r ' P r o b a b l y p' is s u r e l y safe a g a i n s t Kneale's
obje-ctiou: w h e t h e r t h e a s s e r t i o n is c i u a l i f i e d o r l u u p i a l i f i e - d , il is e c i u a l l y
p a r a d o x i c a l l o t h i n k o f i l as a b o u l tlu- s p e a k e r ' s state o f m i n d . W e c a n ,
o f c o u r s e , iiiíer things a b o u t the slates o f m i n d o f o u r l e l l o w - m e i i f r o m
all tlu- t l i i n g s l l i e y say, but il d o e s n o t f o l l o w t h a l all t h e i r s t a t e m e n t s a r e
really aiitobie)gra|)hical r e m a r k s .
( ' a r n a p ' s c r u s a d e a g a i n s t p s y c h o l o g i s m is more- d i a s i i e : h e d e t e c t s t h i s
fallacy v e r y w i d e l y , b o t h i n i n d u c t i v e a n d i u d e d u c l i v e - l o g i c . I l c o n s i s t s
in e s s e i u e, h e says, o f t h e v i e w that 'logie i s . . . l l u - art of i h i u k i n g , a n d
tlu- p i i i u i p l e s of l o g i c . . . p r i n c i p i e s o r laws of t l i o u g l i l . I'hc:se anel s i m i l a r
f o r m i i l a t i o n s r e f e r to t h i n k i n g a n d h e n e e a r e o f a s u b j e c t i v i s t n a t u r e . ' " ' '
B e i n g l i a i i u - d i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e r m s , he- a i g i u - s , llie-y i g n o r e t h e cliscov-
e-ries of F r e g e a n d H u s s e r l , a u d c a n be- l a b e l l e d as psye h o l o g i s t i c ' . H i s
p o s i t i o n l o o k s a l first g l a n c e l i k e a f a m i l i a r o n e , b u l as w e r e a d o n a c e r -
t a i n e x t r a v a g a n c e s h o w s itself; t h e t l a i n e - t h r o w e r w i t h w h i c h , f o r i i i s t a n c e ,
F r e g e gave s u c h a w e - l l - m e r i t e d s c o r c h i n g l o t h e d o c t r i n e that n u m b e r s
a r e a v a r i e l y of i i i e n t a l i m a g e is e m p l o y e e l by C a r n a p o n some- e|iiile u n -
deserving vicUins.
P r i n i i l i v e p s y c h o l o g i s m , t h e v i e w that s t a t e m e n t s i n l o g i c a r e a b o u l a c -
tual m e n t a l p r o c e s s c s , C a r n a p a c h u i t s to b e very raie-. F. P. R a i i i s e y l o y e d
w i l h a d e f i n i t i o n o f ' p r o b a b i l i t y ' i n t e n n s o f a c U i a l degree-s o f b e l i e f , b u t
s o o u w i t h d r e w h i s s n p p o r t f o r it. T h e o n l y u n c i u a l i f i e d i n s t a n c e C a r n a p
t h i n k s h e c a n cite- is a d i s c u s s i o n o f ' | ) r o b a b i l i l y - w a v e s ' in eiiiantum me-
( h a i i i c s ¡11 S i l |anie-s J c a n s ' s b o o k Physics and Philosophy. Vhv lefeie-nce
is a n u n l i a p p y o n e . J e a n s is r a t e d s e v e i e l y f o r s p e a k i n g o l d i e c | u a n l i i i i i
i h e o i i s t ' s | ) i c l i i r e o f t h e a t o i n as o n e w h o s e ¡iigrecl¡e-nts ' c o n s i s i w h o l l y o f
n i e i i t a l c o i i s l i u c t s " ; a n e l t h e r a U i i g is m o s l u i i j u s l , s i n c e h e is not c a l H i i g
piobabilily a siibjective c o n c e p t but o n l y s p e a k i n g o f the Scliiódinger
'"' Ijifriail lümiuialuiii.s <>J l'néMlily, \¡ 11, p. 39.
 l'robahilily
( i i i K l i o n s as i l u - o r t i i t a l í i c t i o n s — w h i c h m a y o i m a y n o l b e a c o r r e d d e -
sci i p i i o n of i h e m , b u t is c e r t a i n l y a v e i y d i f í e r e n t s o r t o f s t o i y
A great many logicians a n d matliematicians, from Bernoulli through
Boole a n d de M o r g a n lo Keynes,Jeffreys a n d Ramsey, are none-lhc-less
c o n v i c l e d o f "cjualified |)sychologism'. 'Slill cliiiging lo llu- belief d i a l
d i e r e m u s í s o m e h o w l)e a c i ó s e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n l o g i c a n d t h i n k i n g , t h e y
say t h a l l o g i c is c o n c e r n e d w i t h c o i T C C t o r r a t i o n a l t h i n k i n g . ' T h i s m i s t a k e
C i u n a p correets:
Tlu- c h a r a r l e r i s a l i o n o f logir in U-rnis of correct o r l a t i o n a l ' o r jiislineci belief
i s j n s t as liglit n o l more eiillgliu-iiing than lo .say thal miiu-raiog)- leils us
how lo ihiiik fonc-ctly aboiil niiiu-rals. Tlu- refeieiice to t h i n k i n g may just as well
be (Iropped in both casc-s. l'hen we say simply: iniiieralogy makes slak-meiil.s
about m i n c i a l s , a n d logic inakes stalcmeiils alioiit logical relations. T h e aclivity
in any lic-UI of knowledge involves, o f conr.se, t h in kin g . B u l this cloes not mean
thal i h l i i k i i i g b i l o n g s lo llu- siibjccl malU-r of all lielcis. It belongs lo Ihe snhjeci
m a l l e r o f psychology but not to thal ol logic any m o r e than l o that of mineialogy."'
O n e t h i n g i n t h i s a c c o u n l is u n d o n b i e d l y c o r r e c t . T l i e r e is c e r t a i n l y
n o r e a s o n w h y m e n t a l w o r d s s h o u l d f i g u r e at all p r o m i n e n t l y i n b o o k s
o n l o g i c ; c-specially i f o i u - t h i n k s o l b e l i e f , w i d i R u s s e l l , as s o m e l l i i n g
h a v i n g as o n e a s p e c t ' a n i d e a o r i m a g e c o m b i n e d w i t h a y e s - f e e l i n g ' . T h e
i n i p o r t a n t t l i i u g a b o i i l d r a w i n g a p r o j H - r c o n c l u s i ó n is l o b e rc-ady l o do
tlu- t l i i n g s a p p r o p r i a l c - i n v i e w o f t h e i n f o r i n a t í o n at o n e ' s d i s p o s a l : a u
a c t u a r y ' s r e s p e c t f o r l o g i c is to b e m e a s i i r e d less by t h e n u m b e r o f w e l l -
p l a c e d y e s - f e e l i n g s h e h a s t h a n by d i e s t a t e o f h i s p r o f i t - a i i d - l o s s a c c o u n l .
N e v e r t h e l e s s , C-arnap's a c c o u n l reveáis s o m e i m p o r t a n t niiscoiicc-])-
l i o n s . He- t a l k s , l i r s t , as t l i o i i g l i l l u - m e a n i n g o f t h e j i b r a s e " l o g i c a l r e l a -
t i o n s ' w e r e t i a i i s p a i e n l , a n d says t h a t ' t h e f o n n u l a t i o i i [ o f l o g i c ) i u t e r m s
o f j u s t i f i e d b e l i e f is d e i i v a b l c - f r o m ' t h a t i n l e m i s o f l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s .
S e c o n d l y , l u - l i c - a l s a l l logic al r e l a t i o n s , a n d h e n e e a l l j u s t i h e d b e l i e f s , a l l
e v i d e i i i i a l s n p p o r t a n d all s a t i s f a c l o i y e x p l a n a l i o i i s as r e l y i i i g f o r t h e i r
validity o n c o n s i d e r a t i o i i s o f s e n i a n t i c s a l o n e . W a i s i i i a i i n h a s c r i t i c i s e d
Frc-ge f o r t h i n k i n g that t h e s t a t e m e n t s o f l o g i c r e p r e s e n t ' l i t t l e h a r d c i y s -
l a l s o f logic a l t r u t h ' : it isc u r i o u s , t h e r e f o r e , d i a l C a r n a p , f o l l o w i n g F r e g e ,
s h o u l d put logical relations o n a footiiig with niiiierals.
F r o m o u r ¡ l o i n t o f vic-w, a c l i a r a c t e r i s a t i o n o f l o g i c i n t e r m s o f j u s -
t i f i e d b e l i e f s , a c l i o n s , p o l i c i e s , a n d s o o n is u i i a v o i d a b l c - . F o r i f l o g i c is
lo have any a p p l i c a t i o n lo the p i a c U c a l assessnienl o f a r g u m e n t s and
Ihiil. k I I , p p . 41-2.
S e e ihitl.11, p. 41.
Probabilily-Tlieory and Psychology Ki
( 0111 I n s i o n s , t h e s e r e f e r e i i c e s a r e b o u n d l o c o m e i n . l ' h i s is n o l at a l l t h e
s a m e as s a y i n g t h a t t h i n k i n g is t h e subject-matter o{ \o^c, as C ^ m a p s u p -
po s e s : n o t e v e n B o o l e , w h o c l i o s e t h e ñ a m e Laws of Thought for bis iiiajor
l o g i c a l t r e a l i s e , c a n h a v e m e a n l t h a t . I h e laws o f l o g i c a r e n o t g e n e i a l -
isations about i h i n k e r s i h i n k i i i g , b u l r a l l u r siaiidarcis for ilie c r i i i c i s m
ol i h i n k e r s ' a c h i e v e m e i i t s . L o g i c is a c r i t i c a l n o t a n a t u r a l s c i e n c e . T o
p u l l l u - ])oint b l u n l l y : l o g i c d o e s n o t d e s c r i b e a s u b j e c t - i u a t t e r , a n d is n o t
<^//wí//anything—at a n y r a l e , i n t h e w a y i n w h i c h n a t u r a l s c i c - n c e s s u c h a s
iniiieralogy a n d psychology are a b o u t m i n e r a l s o r the m i n d . S o Cíarnap's
d i c i i i m , ' L o g i c i n a k e s s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s ' , is m i s l e a d i n g
as w e l l as i i n r e v e a l i n g .
riic- f o r m o f C a r n a p ' s a r g u m e n t is w o r t h n o l i c i n g . H e I j c g i n s b y s e t -
l i n g u p a bogy, p r i n i i l i v e p s y c h o l o g i s m , w l i o s e a c t u a l e x i s t e n c e h e fails
l o e s t a b l i s b . H e i i e x t p o i n t s l o a single- r e s e i i i b l a n c e I x - t w e e n t h e w r i t -
i n g s of e a c h o f t h e l o g i c i a n s w h o m h e p u t s i n l o t h e d o c k a n d i b i s bogy,
n a m e l y t h a l t h e y c o n t a i n s u c h w o r d s as ' t h o u g l i t ' , ' b e l i e f , ' r e a s o n i n g ' a n d
' < o n f i d e n c e ' . T h e l o g i c i a n s a r e t h e n l e c t u r e d 011 t h e d a n g e r s o f k e e p i n g
b a d c o i n p a n v , a n d l l i r e a t e n e e l w i t h a vc-rclicl o f gnilt bv a s s o c i a l i o n —
'.'\11 l i l i s h a s a | i s y c l i o l o g i s ü c s o u i i d ' ; b u l i n view o l llie-ir o t h e r w i s e g o o d
r e c o r d s t h e y a r e l e t o f f w i t h a c a u ü o n . F i n a l l y , since- n o l K ) d y h a s a e t u a l l y
lu-eii f o u n d gnilty, ( C a r n a p r e m a r k s t h a l ' I t e a n i i o t , o f course-, be- d e - n i e d
d i a l l l i c - i e is a l s o a s u b j e c ü v e , p s y c h o l o g i c a l e o n c e p t f o r w h i c h l l u - t e r m
" p r o b a b i l i t y " m a y b e n s e d a n d s o i n e t i i n e s is use-cl.' B u t n o i n s t a n c e o f i b i s
a l l e g e d u s a g e is c i l e d , a p a r t f r o m o n e b a r e a n d u n c o i i v i n c i i i g f o r m u l a :
The- i i r o b a b i l i t y o r d e g r e e o f b e l i e f o f t h e p r e d i c t i o n /tal t h e l i m e I fbr A'.'
I b i s lasl b a i b a i i s m is s y m p t o n i a l i c . F o r t b e m e a n i n g o f the- le-iiii
j ) i ( ) l ) a b i l i l y ' o u l s i d e t h e s p e c i a l s c i e n c e s d o e s n o t s e e m to i i i t e r e s t C a r n a p
a l a l l . N o l o n l y d o e s h e w a n t to l u r n l o g i c i i i t o t h e i n i i i e r a l o g y o f l o g i -
eal l e l a l i o n s . H e a l s o regareis a l l b u t s c i e n t i f i c ])ie)bability-slateinc-nts as
vague, i n e x a c i , i n n e e d o f e x p l i c a l i o i i — i n bis o w n w o r d , ' p r e s c i c n t i l i c ' .
I b i s b e l i e f relieves h i m o f the a r d u o u s task o f e s l a b l i s l i i n g j u s i w h a t these
(Xtra-scienlific uses are: h e w o u l d a g r e e w i l h tbe view t h a l , o n c e ihe
se ie-iilific u s e s h a v e I n - e n e x a n i i n e c l , ' t h e p r o b a b i l i t y - s l a l e i u e i i l s o l p l a i i i
m e n s h o u l d p r o v e f a i r l y e a s y to d e s c r i b e , s i n c e , w h e n n o t fallacious,
l l i e y w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y b e f o u n d to l i e a p p r o x i m a ü o n s to t h o s e o f t h e
scien tisis'.
I f p r e c e d e n t s a r e a n y t h i n g l o g o 011, h o w e v e r , t h i s is a m o s l u i i s a f e
l l i i n g to ¡ i r e s u m e . F o r t h e two p l i i l o s o | ) h i c a l p r o b l e m s m o s t r e s e m b l i i i g
l l i e p r o b l e m o f i i r o b a b i l i t y a r e that e n g a g e d i n by B e r k e l e y 011 l l u - s u b j e c t
o f |K)iiils, a n d that w h i c h b i i r n e d fiercely d u r i n g the n i n e t e e i i t h c e u l u r y
 í ProbahiHiy
a r o i m d i l i c d y n a m i c a l n o t i o n o f f o r c é . I n b o t h t h e s e ca.ses t h e p r o b l e n i
was s o l v e d , n o t by d e v e l o p i n g a s i n g l e i n a t h e n i a d c a l l y - p r e c i s e u s e o f d i e
t e r i i i c o n c e r n e d , a n d d i s m i s s i n g t h e e x t r a - s c i e n t i n c u s e s as o b s o l e t e , b e -
c a u s e p i e - s c i e i H i l i < . It was t h e v e i y a t t e m p t lo e q u a t e d i e oíd a n d the
n e w u s e s o f d i e w o r d s ' p o i n t ' a n d ' f o r c é ' that s t a r t e d d i e t r o u b l e , l e a d i n g
B e r k e l e y , f o r i u s t a i u e , to a s k a b o u l t h e m a l h e m a d c i a n s ' p o i n t , ' W h a t il
i s — w h e d i e r . s o m e t h i n g o r n o t h i n g ; a u d h o w il differs f r o m t h e Mínimum
Sensibile, a n d t l i e r e a f l e r i n l o h i s s p e c u l a l i o n s a l K ) u l t h e Minimn Sensihilid
of cheese-miles. The solndon came rather from aualysing and expound-
i n g c a r e f u l l y rt//the u s e s o f t h e t e r m s ' ] ) o i i i t ' a n d ' f o r c é ' , b o t h i h o s e i n s i d e
g e o i n e t i y o r d y n a m i c s a n d t h o s e out.side, w i t h o u l f a v o i i r to e i t h e r o n e o r
the other. O n l y w h e n this h a d b e e n d o n e , a n d d i e differences iioled,
d i d the ])lnlosophical q u e s d o n s w h i c h h a d s e e m e d so p e r p l e x i n g cease
to a s k l h e m s ( ; l v e s .
I n d i e p l n l o . s o p l i y o f p r o b a b i l i t y , l o o , it c a u s e s o n l y ü o u b l e i f o n e t h i n k s
o f t h e s c i e n ü í i c a p p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e t e r m a s t h e solé satísfactoi-y o n e s . I h e
e v e i y d a y u s e s , t h o u g h not n u m e r i c a l , a r e n o n e - l h e - l e s s | ) e r í e c t l y d e f i n i t e ;
a u d the scieuiific o n e s grow out o f t h e m i n a m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d m a n -
n e r t h a n C i i r n a p r e a l i s e s . I l is o n e t h i n g to p o i n t ont t h e comparalive
precisión—i.e. n u m e r i c a l e x a c l u e s s — o f statements in the i n a t h e m a l i c a l
s c i e i u e s , a n d tbe c o n i j i a r a t i v e ab.seuce o f this k i n d o f precisión in extra-
s c i e n t i f i c talk. B u l to i n t e i p r c t t h i s a b s e i i c e o f n u m e r i t a l e x a t t n e s s as
a l a c k o f p r e c i s i ó n , i n i h e s e n s e o f d e f i n i t e n e s s , a u d to c r i t i c i s e e x l r a -
s c i e i u i f i c d i s c o i i r s e as e s s e i i t i a l l y v a g u e a n d h a / y , is to take- a h i g h i y ( l u e s -
tionable f u i t h e i step. Statements e x j j i e s s e d iu nuinerically-<-xacl Icrins
a r e n o t t h e o n l y o n e s to b e p e r f e c ü y d e f i n i t e a n d u n a m b i g u o n s .
T h e Development of O u r Probabiliiy-Concepts
A t t h i s p o i n i I m u s t I r y l o d r a w t o g e t h e r Üie t h r e a d s o f t h i s essay. I l h a s
c o i i s i s l e d , i n |)art, o f a n a l t e m p t to b r i n g to l i g h l t h e m a u n e r i n w h i c h we
i n ¡iractii e o p é r a l e w i t h t h e c o n c e p t o f p r o b a b i l i t y a n d its c i ó s e r e l a t i o n s ;
a n d , i n ¡ l a i t , o f a n a t t e m p t to s h o w h o w t h e c u r r e u t c o n t r o v e r s i e s a b o i u
t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f p r o b a b i l i t y h a v e t e n d e d to n i i s r e p r e s e n t t h e n a t u r e o f
the c o n c e p t . T h e g e n e r a l i ) h i l o s o p h i c a l i>oiiits we h a v e c o m e a c r o s s w i l l
b e c o m i n g u p f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o u a g a i n l a t e r : w h a t I w a n t l o d o h e r e is
to b r i n g t o g e t h e r t b e m o r e p r a c ü c a l o b s e i - v a t í o n s w e h a v e m a d e about
the fimclions o f o u r p r o b a b i l i t y - l e r m s , a n d to s u m m a r i s e t h e m briefly,
s h o w i n g h o w t h e c o n c e | ) l d e v e l o j i s f r o m its e l e n i e n t a i y b e g i n n i n g s l o ils
most sophisücated scienüfic a n d t e c h n i c a l applicaüons.
Tfie DnielopmenI of Ont Probnhility-Concepis 83
I b b e g i n w i t h , 1 a r g u e d , t h e a d v e r b ' p r o b a b l y ' sei-ves u s as a m e a n s
ol ( l u a l i f y i n g c o n c l u s i o n s a n d a s s e r l i o n s , s o as to i n d í c a t e t h a t t h e state-
n u n l is m a d e s o m e l l i i n g less t h a n positively, a n d m u s t n o t b e t a k e n as
( o m m i t t i n g t h e s p e a k e r to m o r e t h a n a c e r l a i n e x t e n t . r i i i i s , a m a n m a y
give a p r e l i n i i n a i y i n d i c a t i o n o f h i s i n t e n ü o i i s o r a g u a r d e d u n d e r l a k i n g
by s a y i n g , ' I s h a l l p r o b a b l y d o s o - a n d - s o . ' O r h e c a n m a k e a l e i i l a l i v e p r e -
d i c t i o n , o u t h e b a s i s o f e v i d e n c e w h i c h is iusufTK i e n t f o r a m o r e ])osiüve
o n e , by s a y i n g , ' S o a n d - s o w i l l j i r o b a b l y h a | j p e n . ' O r a g a i n , h e c a n m a k e
a c a n t i o u s e v a h i a t i o n w h i c h h e p r e s e n t s ( p e r h a p s ) as s u b j e c t l o r e c o n s i d -
e r a t i o u i n t h e l i g h l o f a m o r e d e l a i l e d s l i i d y , by s a y i n g , " I h i s p a i n l i n g is
probably tbe finesi p r o d u c t o f t h e w h o l e P a d u a u S c h o o l . ' At i b i s s l a g e ,
d i e r e is r i o l h i n g l o c h o o s e b e t w e e n e v a l u a ü o n s , p r o m i s e s a n d | ) r e d i c -
l i o n s : a l l o f t h e m e q u a l l y c a n c o n t a i n t h e w o r d ' p r o b a b l y ' , a n d ils f o r c é
in e a c h ca.se is t h e s a m e — e v e n t h o u g h t h e s o r t s o f e v i d e i u t - n e e d e d f o r
a t e n l a t i v e as o p p o s e d to a p o s i ü v e m e t e o r o l o g i c a l p r e d i c t i o n w i l l , i n t h e
nature o f the c a s e , be very different f r o m the sorts o f g r o u n d s justifying a
c a n t i o u s as o j i p o s e d to a n o u i r i g h l a s c r i p l i o i i o f g e n i u s to a j i a i i U e r , a n d
f r o m t h e r e a s o n s w h i c h o b l i g e a m a n to give o n l y a ( | u a l i l i e d a n d n o l a
l u l l y - c o i n i n i l t a l u n d e r l a k i n g o r s t a t e m e n t tif b i s i n l e i i ü o n s .
Just how lar we are e n ü ü e d to c o m m i t o u r s e l v e s d e p e n d s o n the
s t i e n g l b o f l l i e g r o u n d s , r e a s o n s o r e v i d e n c e al o u r d i s p o s a l . W e may, l i k e
K l e a i i o r Kai j e o n ' s b i o t l i e r , l i e s i l a t e i u a u e x ( c s s o f < a u l i o u e v e r to c o m m i t
o u r s e l v e s at a l l , a n d s o f e e l o b l i g e d to a d d to a l l o u r s t a t e m e n t s a (piality-
i i i g ' p r o b a b l y ' , ' p o s s i b l y ' o r ' p e r h a p s ' . B u t if we a r e | ) r e [ ) a r e d to c o i n n i i t
oureelves, w h e t h e r positively o r l u u l e r c o n i p a i a l i v e l y w e a k g u a r d s , llieii
w e c a n b e c h a l l e i i g e d l o p r o d u c e t h e ba( k i u g fbr o u r c o m m i t n i e n t . W e
m a y n o t say, ' I s h a l l p r o b a b l y c o m e ' , i f w e h a v e s U - o n g r e a s o n s f o r t h i n k i n g
that w e s h a l l b e pre^vented; o r say, ' T l i i s is p r o b a b l y b i s fiiiesi ] ) a i i i t i n g ' ,
w h e n il is t h e o n l y o n e o f t h e a i ü s l ' s w o i k s d i a l we h a v e e v e r s t - e u ; o r say,
It w i l l p r o b a b l y r a i n l o m o r r o w ' , i n t h e a b s e i i c e o f fairly s o l i d m e t e o r o l o g -
i c a l e v i d e n c e . O u r p r o b a b i l i t y - t e r m s c o m e to s e m , t h e r e f o r e , n o l o n l y
to q u a l i f y a s s e r l i o n s , p r o m i s e s a n d e v a l u a t i o n s t h e i n s e l v e s , b u l a l s o as a n
indic a l i o i i o f t h e s t r e u g ü i o f t b e b a c k i n g w h i c h we h a v e f o r t h e a s s e r ü o n ,
e v a l u a t i o u o r w h a l e v e r . I t is t h e q u a l i t y o f d i e eiiidence o r argument al the
s p e a k e r ' s d i s p o s a l w h i c h d e t e r m i n e s w h a t sort o f ( l u a l i f i e r h e is e n l i t l e d
to i i i c l u d e i n h i s s t a t e m e n t s : w h e t h e r h e o u g h t l o say, ' I b i s m u s t be t h e
c a s e ' , ' T h i s m a y b e t h e c a s e ' , o r " F i l i s c a n n o t b e t h e c a s e ' ; w h e t h e r l o say
'Certainly s o a n d - s o ' , 'Probably so-and-so', o r 'Possibly so-and-so'.
B y ( ) u a l i í y i n g o u r c o n c l u s i o n s a n d a s s e r l i o n s i n d i e ways we d o , w e
auüioiise o u r h e a i e r s to p u t m o r e o r less faitli i n t h e a s s e r l i o n s o r
•4 J'robfihilily
( o i i r l i i s i o i i s , l o b a n k o ) i ihvm, r e l y o n t b c n i , t i e a l (ht-ni as r o i i i ' S ] ) o n c l -
i n g l y m o r e o r l e s s t r u s t w o r t h y . In m a n y fielcls o f d i s c u s s i o n , t h i s is as far as
w e c a n go: f o r i n s t a n c e , w e c a n p r e s e n t a n a e s t h e t i c j u c l g e m e l i t w i l h a i ! t h e
w e i g l i t o f o i u a i U h o i i l y b e h i i u l it, o r i u a m o i e o r less (|ualifiecl n i a n u e r —
' M o i i e t lias a s t r o n g c l a i m to Ix- r t ^ g a i d e d as t b e o i U s t a i i d i i i g m e n i b e r o f
t b e I i u | ) r e s s i o n i s t S c h o o l ' — b u t t h e r e is little r o o m h e r e f o r l a y i n g b e t s o r
a l l o t t i n g i i n m e n c a l v a l ú e s to t h e s t r e n g t h o f c l a i m s o r to t h e d e g r e e s o f
c o n H d e n c e o n e c a n p l a c e i n c o n c l u s i o n s o r a.ssertions. W i t h p r e d i c t i o n s ,
o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a n e w { X ) s s i b i l i t y e m e r g e s , es¡)ecially w h e r e a parti( n -
l a r k i n d o f e v e i i t is l i a b l e l o r e c u r a t i n t e r v a l s i n v e r y m u c h t h e s a m e f o r m ;
w e m a y n o w b e a b l e to i n d i c a l e t h e trust a p r o p o s i l i o n is e n l i t l e d to, a n d
t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h we s h o u l d be p i e | ) a r e d to b a n k o n i l , n o t just i n a g e n -
e r a l , q n a l i l a ü v e way b u l i n n u m e r i c a l t e n n s . A t t h i s p o i n t i n a t h e m a l i c a l
n i e l h o d s c a n e i i t e r into the d i s c u s s i o n o f probabilities. W h e n the (lues-
l i o n a l i s s u e h a s l o d o w i t h t h e w i i i i i e r o f a f o r t h c o m i n g h o r s e - r a ( e, w i l h
t h e s e x o f a n u n b o r n baby, o r t h e n u m b e r o n w h i c h t h e h a l l w i l l s e t l l e
n e x t t i m e t h e r o u l e t i e - w h e e l is s p i i n , t h e n it b e c o m e s m e a n i n g f n l to l a l k
a b o u l u u i n e r i c a l ¡ ) r o b a b i l i l i e s i n a way i u w h i c h i n a e s t h e t i c s it p r o b a b l y
n e v e r w i l l . Kive to o n e o n t h e Madonna ojtlieRocks, ' T h e c h a n c e s that t h e
Marriage of Fígaro is M o z a r t ' s f i n e s t o p e r a a r e t h r e e to t w o ' , a n d t h e l i k e :
il is n o l e a s y to s e e h o w a i i l h i n e l i c c o u l d e v e r e u t e r i n l o t b e a s s e s s i n e n t
o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s i n s u c h a f i e k l as i b i s .
S l i l l , logi( ally, l i t i l e is altercad by t h e i n t r o d u c ü o n o f m a t h e m a d c s i n t o
the discussion o f the probability o f future events. T h e n u m e r i c a l dis-
cussion of probabilities becomes, n o doubt, sophislicated a n d soniewhat
c o m p l e x , but u n l e s s a c a l c i i l u s p r o v i d e s a m e a n s o f e s t i m a t i n g h o w far
p r o p o s i t i o n s a r e e n U d e d to o u r t n i s t o r b e l i e f , it c a n h a r d l y b e c a l l e d
a ' c a l c i i l u s o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s ' at a l l . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e m a l l i e m a t i -
c a l l l i e o r y o f p r o b a b i l i t y a c c o r d i n g l y l e a v e s t h e fme of o u r probabiliiv-
s l a t e m e n l s m u l i a n g e d ; ils v a l u é is d i a l it g r e a t l y r e f i n e s t b e slandnrds
lo Ix- a p p e a l e d l o , a n d s o t h e m o r á i s w e c a n d r a w a b o u t d i e d e g r e e o f
expectabilily o f future eveiils.
I l w o u l d b e l o o s t r o n g l o say d i a l — l o g i c a l l y s p e a k i n g — l l u - dev<-lo|)-
m e n l o f m a t h e m a t i c a l statistícs a n d t h e t l i e o i y o f c h a n c e s left o u r l a l k
a b o u l probability entírely u n a l t e r e d . W i t h i n the m a t h e m a t i c a l theory i I -
s(-ll, a b s i r a c l i o i i d o e s its u s u a l w o r k , a n d w e c a n m a k e g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t s
a b o u t tlu- ( x l d s cjr c h a n c e s o f this o r t h a l k i n d o f e v e i i t w h i c h appear
to h a v e , i n t h e m s e l v e s , n o n e o f l l i e ' g u a r d i n g ' o r ' q i i a l i f y i n g ' c l i a r a c l e r
o f their particular applications. Particular probability-stalemeiits, again,
c a n cali for c o i rectíon o n o c c a s i o n s w h e n g e n e r a l statements about ixlds
Tfie Dnielopmenl of Our Prohabílily-Conrepis «5
( a u be left u i u o n e c t e d . H u í s , t b e o d d s a g a i n s t a s t e a i n - r o l l e r r u n n i i i g
over a Lora M a y o r o f L o n d o i i are e n o n n o i i s ; a n d wiüi this geiierality
i n m i n d w e c a n say, p r e d i c t i v e l y , ' T h e p r e s e n t L o r d M a y o r t>f L o n d o i i
will, i n all probability, n o l die d u r i n g bis l e n n o f office I x i i e a t h the
w l i e e i s of a s t e a i n - r o l l e i . ' S u p p o s i i i g , h o w e v e r , d i e i i i c r e d i b l e h a p p e n s ,
we s h a l l b e f o r c e d to c o n f e s s o u r p a r t i c u l a r p r e d i c t i o n m i s t a k e n ; yet w e
s h a l l m a i n t a i n u i i a i i i e i i d e d t h e g e n e r a l s i a l e m e n i by w h i c h w e s h o u l d
have d e f e n d e d i l — t h e o d d s against s u c h a n a c c i d e n i are c e i l a i n l y n o t
d i m i n i s h e d by i l s h a v i n g h a p p e i i e d o n c e , a n d it r e m a i n s as r e a s o n a b l e as
Ix-fore l o d i s c o u u t e n t i i e l y t h e d a n g e r o f its o c c n n e n c e .
r i i e o i e l i c a l c a l c u l a t i o u s o f (xlds a u d ' p r o b a b i l i t i e s ' , in tbe niallu-iiial-
i c a l s e n s e , c a n a c c o r d i n g l y be l a u g h t a n d p e r f o n n e d , w i t h o u l t h e m o d a l
hinctíon o f t h e i r practícal applicatíons ever attractíng a t t e n t i o n . Süll, for
all t h e difíei e n e e s i u d e g r e e o f c o r r i g i b i l i l y a u d s o o u b e t w e e n s u c h g e n -
e r a l c o n s i i U - r a t i o i i s a n d o u r g u a r d e d p r e d i c t i o n s , t h e l o g i c a l aífiliatioiis
l e m a i n . The g u a r d e d p r e d i c t i o n , ' S u c l i a n accideiit will p r o b a b l y n e v e r
l i a p p e n ' , r e m a i n s a u a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e g e n e r a l a s s i i r a n c e that ' T h e o d d s
a g a i n s t s i u h a n a( c i d e n l a n - e n o r i i i o u s . '
O u r probability-lerms—'probably', ' c h a n c e ' , 'the (xlds a r e ' , ' i n all
probability'—show i n practíce, therefore, m a n y o f die features which
w e d i s c o v e r e d i u tbe lirst essay l o b e i h a i a c K - r i s t i c o f m o d a l t e r i i i s . I n t h i s
respect, llu- iiiatlieiiiatical Ireatiiu-iit o f probability' r e p r e s e n l s a n a t u r a l
extensión o f the l e r i n ' s m o r e e l e i i i e n t a i y a n d e v e i y d a y uses.
S o m e philosophers nevertheless have an ineiadicable siispicion of o u r
e v e i y d a y f o n i i s o f t h o u g h t . It s e e m s l o t h e m t h a l t h e w a y s w e e n i p l o y
words like ' f o r c é ' , ' m o l i o i i ' , ' c a u s e ' a n d s o o n in the workadayaffairs oflife
o n l y t o o l i k e l y n-st o n m i s t a k e n a s s u m p t i o n s , a n d that o n r e x t r a - s c i e n t í f i c
use o f the K-nii probability' m a y well h a i b o u r gross fallacies also. I n t h e i r
view, l l i e d e v ( - l o p n i e i i t o f s c i e n c e , a n d t b e d i s p l a c e i u e n l o f a l l o u r o r d i -
n a i y , p r e - s c i e n i i fu i d e a s by l l i e m o r e r e f i n e d n o t í o n s o f d i e t h e o r e t i c a l
sciences, l i o l d out the o n l y h o p e o f salvatíon f r o m i i i c o h e r e i i c e , falhuy
aud iiilellectual confusión. O r d i n a i y coiicepis are vague a n d i n e x a c l , a i i d
h a v e l o b e l e p h u e d by m o r e p r e c i s e o n e s , a n d t h e s c i e i i l i s t is e i i t i l U - d l o
d i s r e g a r d t h e pre-scieiitífic s i g n i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e t e r m s h e e i i i p l o y s .
I n the field o f probability, ibis prognosticatioii has t u r n e d o u i lo be
u n n e c e s s a r i l y g l o o m y T h e r e is, after a l l , n o r a d i c a l d i s c o i i l i n u i l y b e l w t e n
the p r e - s c i e i i l i l i c a n d the scientiíic uses o f o u r probability-terms. S o m e
p h i l o s o p h e r s h a v e , i n d e e d , t a l k e d as t h o u g h t h e r e w e r e s u c h a d i s c o i i -
tiiiiiity: t h e y h a v e r a t h e r wel( o i i u - d t h e i d e a t h a l t h e y w e r e d i s c i e d i t i n g
l o n g - s t a n d i i i g f a l l a c i e s , a n d r e p l a c i n g v a g u e a n d m u d d l e d i d e a s by p r e c i s e
•6 Prohahitity

III
and i x a ( ( ones. M w c have- st-en, this p i c t i i r e o f d i e m s e l v e s as s c i e n t i f i c
< r u s a d e r s w i l l s t a n d u p to e x a i n i n a d o n o n l y so l o n g a s o n e fails to d i s -
linguish between precisión in the sense o f 'exactness' a n d precisión in T h e Layout of Arguments
die sense o f ' d e f i n i t e i i e s s ' . O i U s i d e the betting-shop, the c a s i n o a u d the
t h e o r e ü c a l p h y s i c i s t ' s study, w e m a y h a v e little o c c a s i o n to i n t r o d u c e n u -
m e r i c a l p r e c i s i ó n i n t o o i n - talk a b o u t p r o b a b i l i t i e s , b u t t l i e t h i n g s we say
a r e n o n e - t h e - l e s s d e f i n i t e o r free f r o m v a g u e n e s s . W e r e o n e , i n fact, to c u t
a w a y f r o m t h e t h e o r y o f i n a l h e m a t i c a l p r o b a b i l i t y a l l that it o w e s to o u r
p r e - s c i e n i i f i c w a y s o f t h o u g h t a l x j u t t h e s u b j e c t , it w o u l d l o s e a l l a p p l i -
c a t i o n to p r a c t i c a l a d a i n ; . T b e j ) u n t e r a n d t h e a c t u a r y , t h e p h y s i c i s t a n d
t h e d i c e - t h r o w e r a r e as m u c h c o u c e r n e d w i d i d e g r e e s o f a c c e p t a b i l i t y
a n d e x p e c t a t i o n as the m e t e o r o l o g i s t o r the inaii-in-the-street: w h e t h e r
b a c k e d by m a t h e m a t i c a l c a l c i i l a d o n s o r n o , t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f u n c d o n
o f o u r p a r t i c u l a r , | ) r a c t i c a l p r o b a b i l i t y - s t a t e m e n t s is to p r e s e n t guardador A n a r g u m e n t is l i k e a n o r g a n i s i n . It h a s b o t h a g r o s s , a n a t o m i c a l s t r u c t u r e

qualified a s s e r l i o n s a u d c o n c l u s i o n s . a n d a f i n e r , as-it-were p h y s i o l o g i c a l o n e . W h e n set o u t e x p l i c i d y i n a l l

its d e u i l , it m a y o c c u p y a n u m b e r of p r i n t e d p a g e s o r t a k e p e r h a p s a
( l u a i t e r o f a n h o u r to d e l i v e r ; a n d w i t h i n this t i n u - o r s p a c e o n e can
distinguish the i n a i n pitases m a r k i u g the progress o f the a r g u m e n t f r o m
t h e i n i U a l s t a t e m e n t o f a n i i i i s e l t l e d p r o b l e m to i h e f i n a l p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a
c o n c l u s i ó n . T h e s e n i a i n p h a s e s w i l l e a c h o f t h e m o( i u p y s o m e m i n u t e s o r
paragraphs, a n d r e p r e s e n t the c h i e f a u a l o i n i c a l iinits ol the a r g u m e n t —
ils ' o r g a n s ' , so to s p e a k . B u t w i d i i n e a c h p a r a g i a | ) h , w h e n o n e g e t s d o w n
to t h e l e v e l o f i n d i v i d u a l s e n t e n c e s , a í i i i e r s t r u c t u r e c a n b e r e c o g n i s e d ,
a n d l i l i s is t h e s t r u c t u r e w i l h w h i c h logi( i a i i s h a v e i i i a i n l y c o n c e r n e d
t h e i n s e l v e s . I t is at t h i s p h y s i o l o g i c a l lev(-l t h a l t h e i d e a o f l o g i c a l f o r m
h a s b e e n i n t r o d u c e d , a n d h e r e t h a t t h e validity o f o u r a r g u m e n t s has
ultimately lo be e s l a b l i s h e d o r r e f u l e d .

T h e t i m e h a s c o m e to c h a i i g e t h e f o c u s o l o u r i i u p i i i y , a n d to c o n -
c é n t r a t e o n t h i s finer l e v e l . Y e t w e c a n n o t a f f o r d to f o r g e t w h a l w e h a v e
l e a r n e d by o u r s t u d y o f t h e g r o s s e r a n a t o m y o f a r g i i i n e u t s , f o r h e r e as
with o r g a u i s i u s the d e l a i l e d physiology proves most iiitelligible w h e n ex-
p o u i i d e d against a b a c k g r o u n d o f c o a i s e r anatomical ilistinctions. Physi-
ological ¡jrocesses a r e iiiterestíng n o t least for the p a r t they play i n n i a i n -
laining the fnnctions of the niajor organs in w h i c h ihey take place; a n d
m i c r o - a r g u i n e n t s (as o n e m a y c l i i i s l e n t h e m ) n e e d l o b e l o o k e d a l f r o m
t i m e to ü i n e w i t h o n e e y e o n t h e m a c r o - a r g u m e n t s i n w h i c h t h e y figure;
s i n c e t h e p r e c i s e m a n n e r i n w h i c h w e p h r a s e t h e m a n d set t h e m o u t , to
m e n d o n o n l y t h e least i m p o r t a n t t h i n g , m a y b e a f f e c t e d by t h e r o l e t h e y
h a v e to p l a y i n t h e l a r g e r c o i i t e x t .

87