Hi Avi, sorry about the late response. I've just moved house and have been without internet for a couple of weeks.
Regarding your last post, I think you're referring to so-called 'epistemic' probability, i.e. the interpretation of probability as a degree of belief, as opposed to other interpretations such as probability as an objective frequency. There has been a lot of heat generated over the years about which interpretation is the 'correct' one, but it seems to me that the differences have been exaggerated. To my mind, a degree of belief (say 70%) in a proposition must take into account the frequencies involved if it's to have a firm rational basis. Nor do I think there is any basis for a hard dividing line between probability and deductive logic.
For example, take the classic deductive syllogism :
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
So, Socrates is mortal
This is valid and so it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. An example of a 'statistical syllogism' is :
99.9% of men are mortal
Socrates is a man
So,Socrates is mortal
In this case, while it's possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, it's not likely. But what is so special about 99.9%, as opposed to 100%, which makes the first argument part of logic but the second not?
