Probabilistic Models of Coherence and Positive Relevance II

在第一个资助期内，我们主要侧重于评估概率措施的一致性与一般充分性约束和具体的测试案例的帮助下，后者的判断也进行了实证研究。此外，在与Glöckner和Bröder的项目合作中，我们采取了重要步骤，比较概率一致性措施和约束满足方法。最后，我们在剩下的几个月里完成了概率确认措施的全面调查。第二个阶段是完成这些研究，并仔细研究基于连贯性和确认的推理的合理性。首先，我们继续测试的描述性充分的措施的一致性，我们把我们的计算机程序使用，以计算研究这些措施的特点，如他们的能力，提供一个概括的演绎等价。其次，我们通过分析在何种条件下以及在何种程度上连贯性增加了信念高度可能或接近真理的机会，来审视寻求连贯性的合理性。第三，我们引入了一种新的连贯性，即集中的连贯性，以适用于标准的情况下，从文献中的可废止推理的相应措施，并部署它们在构建精确的模型的统一。第四，我们研究确认的概率措施是否为臭名昭著的乌鸦悖论提供了合理的解决方案。第五，最后一步是将两个供资期的结果汇编成一本专著。

During the first funding period, we mainly focused on evaluating probabilistic measures of coherence with the help of general adequacy constraints and specific test cases, where judgement on the latter was also studied empirically. Furthermore, in cooperation with Glöckner and Bröder's project we took important steps into a comparison of probabilistic coherence measures and the constraint-satisfaction approach. Finally, we finish the comprehensive survey of probabilistic measures of confirmation in the remaining months. The second period is devoted to completing these studies and having a closer look at the rationality of coherence- and confirmation-based reasoning. First, we continue testing the descriptive adequacy of measures of coherence; and we put our computer programme to use in order to computationally study these measures' characteristics, such as their capacity to provide a generalisation of deductive equivalence. Second, we scrutinise the rationality of the search for coherence by analysing under which conditions and to what extent coherence increases the chances of coming to beliefs being highly likely or close to the truth. Third, we introduce a new species of coherence, namely focused coherence, in order to apply the corresponding measures to standard cases from the literature on defeasible reasoning and to deploy them in constructing precise models of unification. Fourth, we examine whether probabilistic measures of confirmation provide rational solutions to the infamous ravens paradox. Fifth, the final touch is given by compiling the results of both funding periods in a monograph.