Talk:Probabilistic logic

Proposed merger with Bayesian logic

This article is about a much broader topic than Bayesian logic, which is now Bayesian probability. There are many different types of probabilistic logics. The links on this page cover some of the major areas; Bayesian-ism is just one approach. Each has different technical considerations and practical applications, so lumping them all into one article seems likely to lead to more confusion rather than less, as would merging this overview article with Subjective logic, Dempster-Shafer theory, or even Bayesian probability. 118.92.97.82 (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree, don't merge. The addition of confidence to the theory means that it is fundamentally not Bayesian, as it does employ the rules of Bayes to perform deduction ... and Bayesian logic is not even capable of induction, formally speaking. linas (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing the merge tag, as, now with a proper intro, its clear that many of the "probabilistic" logics aren't (just) about probability, but about evidence. linas (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Historical Context

The historical context assumes that the reader assumes a frequentist interpretation of probability/doesn't hold a subjective interpretation of probability. The section should be revised to make this explicit and perhaps to explain why commitment to this is notably important to understanding probabilistic logic. 2607:F720:F00:4032:E06C:4FC1:5814:9EB (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The "historical context" section makes an unsupported metaphysical claim which seems to me to be making a distinction without a difference. "That probability and uncertainty are not quite the same thing may be understood by noting that, despite the mathematization of probability in the Enlightenment, mathematical probability theory remains, to this very day, entirely unused in criminal courtrooms, when evaluating the "probability" of the guilt of a suspected criminal." -- That probability theory is unused in criminal courtrooms is not evidence that it should not be used in criminal courtrooms. "In evidentiary logic, there is a need to distinguish the truth of a statement from the confidence in its truth: thus, being uncertain of a suspect's guilt is not the same as assigning a numerical probability to the commission of the crime." This a claim, presented as if it were evidence to support itself. Philgoetz (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

NARS

> Systems such as Pei Wang's Non-Axiomatic Reasoning System (NARS)

NARS is a reasoning system which doesn't fall under the category of probabilistic logics or predicate logic.

the logic of NARS, called non-axiomatic logic (NAL) is based on Term logic. Someone should fix this and put NARS into a own wikipedia article where it belongs. It is a complete alien under reasoning systems and the logic it is using a also a complete alien. Robert Wünsche (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed NARS as not just as nonprobabilistic, but because references appear to be thin. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)