{"id":3387,"date":"2010-03-10T00:27:01","date_gmt":"2010-03-10T08:27:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=3387"},"modified":"2010-03-20T17:16:05","modified_gmt":"2010-03-21T01:16:05","slug":"surprised","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/?p=3387","title":{"rendered":"Surprised?"},"content":{"rendered":"<div><blockquote>In the section <q>The propensity theories of Miller, the later Popper and Fetzer<\/q>, I consider the propensity theories of Miller and the later Popper, and of Fetzer.<\/blockquote> <div style=\"padding-left: 50% ;\">Donald Gillies<br \/><cite>Philosophical Theories of Probability<\/cite><br \/>Ch 6 &#167;1 (p114)<\/div><\/div> <div><blockquote>In the section <q>General arguments for interpreting probabilities in economcs as epistemological rather than objective<\/q>, I will present some general arguments for interpreting probabilities in economcs as epistemological rather than objective.<\/blockquote> <div style=\"padding-left: 50% ;\">Gillies, <span style=\"font-style: italic ;\">opus citatum<\/span><br \/>Ch 9 &#167;1 (p187)<\/div><\/div>There's a <em>huge<\/em> amount of utterly useless meta-discussion in Gillies&#39; book.  He writes about his writing without providing any meaningful enlightenment whatso&euml;ver. <p>An editor should have put his or her foot down, and told Gillies to trim away all this fat.  But, again, there doesn't seem to be much <em>editing<\/em> of books these days, except when done by authors themselves.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In the section The propensity theories of Miller, the later Popper and Fetzer, I consider the propensity theories of Miller and the later Popper, and of Fetzer. Donald GilliesPhilosophical Theories of ProbabilityCh 6 &#167;1 (p114) In the section General arguments for interpreting probabilities in economcs as epistemological rather than objective, I will present some general [&hellip;]","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,117,4],"tags":[569],"class_list":["post-3387","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary","category-communication","category-public","tag-editing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3387","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3387"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3387\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.oeconomist.com\/blogs\/daniel\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}