Search

A major hypothesis about conditionals is the Equation in which the probability of a conditional equals the corresponding conditional probability: p(if A then C) = p(C|A). Probabilistic theories often treat it as axiomatic, whereas it follows from the meanings of conditionals in the theory of mental models. In this theory, intuitive models (system 1) do not represent what is false, and so produce errors in estimates of p(if A then C), yielding instead p(A & C). Deliberative models (system 2) are normative, and yield the proportion of cases of A in which C holds, i.e., the Equation. Intuitive estimates of the probability of a conditional about unique events: If covid-19 disappears in the USA, then Biden will run for a second term, together with those of each of its clauses, are liable to yield joint probability distributions that sum to over 100%. The error, which is inconsistent with the probability calculus, is massive when participants estimate the joint probabilities of conditionals with each of the different possibilities to which they refer. This result and others under review corroborate the model theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The mental model theory postulates that the meanings of conditionals are based on possibilities. Indicative conditionals—such as "If he is injured tomorrow, then he will take some leave"—have a factual interpretation that can be paraphrased as It is possible, and remains so, that he is injured tomorrow, and in that case certain that he takes some leave. Subjunctive conditionals, such as, "If he were injured tomorrow, then he would take some leave," have a prefactual interpretation that has the same paraphrase. But when context makes clear that his injury will not occur, the subjunctive has a counterfactual paraphrase, with the first clause: It was once possible, but does not remain so, that he will be injured tomorrow. Three experiments corroborated these predictions for participants' selections of paraphrases in their native Spanish, for epistemic and deontic conditionals, for those referring to past and to future events, and for those with then clauses referring to what may or must happen. These results are contrary to normal modal logics. They are also contrary to theories based on probabilities, which are inapplicable to deontic conditionals, such as, "If you have a ticket, then you must enter the show." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ontology of decision theory has been subject to considerable debate in the past, and discussion of just how we ought to view decision problems has revealed more than one interesting problem, as well as suggested some novel modifications of classical decision theory. In this paper it will be argued that Bayesian, or evidential, decision-theoretic characterizations of decision situations fail to adequately account for knowledge concerning the causal connections between acts, states, and outcomes in decision situations, and so they are incomplete. Second, it will be argues that when we attempt to incorporate the knowledge of such causal connections into Bayesian decision theory, a substantial technical problem arises for which there is no currently available solution that does not suffer from some damning objection or other. From a broader perspective, this then throws into question the use of decision theory as a model of human or machine planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]