Inferences however are drawn, and practically, in most cases, quite justly drawn. An escape from the apparent indeterminateness of the problem, as above described, is found by assuming that, not merely will one-tenth of the whole number of men have black hair (for this was given as one of the data), but also that one-tenth alike of those who are and who are not short-sighted have black hair. Let us take a batch of 1200, as a sample of the whole. Now, from the data which were originally given to us, it will easily be seen that in every such batch there will be on the average 120 who have black hair, and therefore 1080 who have not. And here in strict right we ought to stop, at least until we have appealed again to experience; but we do not stop here. From data which we assume, we go on to infer that of the 120, 10 (i.e.
one-twelfth of 120) will be short-sighted, and 110 (the remainder) will not. Similarly we infer that of the 1080, 90 are short-sighted, and 990 are not. On the whole, then, the 1200 are thus divided:—black-haired short-sighted, 10; short-sighted without black hair, 90; black-haired men who are not short-sighted, 110; men who are neither short-sighted nor have black hair, 990.
This rule, expressed in its most general form, in the language of Probability, would be as follows:—If the chances of a thing being p and q are respectively 1/m and 1/n, then the chance of its being both p and q is 1/mn, p and not q is n − 1/mn, q and not p is m − 1/mn, not p and not q is (m − 1)(n − 1)/mn, where p and q are independent. The sum of these chances is obviously unity; as it ought to be, since one or other of the four alternatives must necessarily exist.
§ 6. I have purposely emphasized the distinction between the inference in this case, and that in the two preceding, to an extent which to many readers may seem unwarranted. But it appears to me that where a science makes use, as Probability does, of two such very distinct sources of conviction as the necessary rules of arithmetic and the merely more or less cogent ones of Induction, it is hardly possible to lay too much stress upon the distinction. Few will be prepared to deny that very arbitrary assumptions have been made by many writers on the subject, and none will deny that in the case of what are called ‘inverse probabilities’ assumptions are sometimes made which are at least decidedly open to question. The best course therefore is to make a pause and stringent enquiry at the point at which the possibility of such error and doubtfulness first exhibits itself. These remarks apply to some of the best writers on the subject; in the case of inferior writers, or those who appeal to Probability without having properly mastered its principles, we may go further. It would really not be asserting too much to say that they seem to think themselves justified in assuming that where we know nothing about the distribution of the properties alluded to we must assume them to be distributed as above described, and therefore apportion our belief in the same ratio. This is called ‘assuming the events to be independent,’ the supposition being made that the rule will certainly follow from this independence, and that we have a right, if we know nothing to the contrary, to assume that the events are independent.
The validity of this last claim has already been discussed in the first chapter; it is only another of the attempts to construct à priori the series which experience will present to us, and one for which no such strong defence can be made as for the equality of heads and tails in the throws of a penny. But the meaning to be assigned to the ‘independence’ of the events in question demands a moment's consideration.
The circumstances of the problem are these. There are two different qualities, by the presence and absence respectively of each of which, amongst the individuals of a series, two distinct pairs of classes of these individuals are produced. For the establishment of the rule under discussion it was found that one supposition was both necessary and sufficient, namely, that the division into classes caused by each of the above distinctions should subdivide each of the classes created by the other distinction in the same ratio in which it subdivides the whole. If the independence be granted and so defined as to mean this, the rule of course will stand, but, without especial attention being drawn to the point, it does not seem that the word would naturally be so understood.
§ 7. The above, then, being the fundamental rules of inference in probability, the question at once arises, What is their relation to the great body of formulæ which are made use of in treatises upon the science, and in practical applications of it? The reply would be that these formulæ, in so far as they properly belong to the science, are nothing else in reality than applications of the above fundamental rules. Such applications may assume any degree of complexity, for owing to the difficulty of particular examples, in the form in which they actually present themselves, recourse must sometimes be made to the profoundest theorems of mathematics. Still we ought not to regard these theorems as being anything else than convenient and necessary abbreviations of arithmetical processes, which in practice have become too cumbersome to be otherwise performed.
This explanation will account for some of the rules as they are ordinarily given, but by no means for all of them. It will account for those which are demonstrable by the certain laws of arithmetic, but not for those which in reality rest only upon inductive generalizations. And it can hardly be doubted that many rules of the latter description have become associated with those of the former, so that in popular estimation they have been blended into one system, of which all the separate rules are supposed to possess a similar origin and equal certainty. Hints have already been frequently given of this tendency, but the subject is one of such extreme importance that a separate chapter (that on Induction) must be devoted to its consideration.
§ 8. In establishing the validity of the above rules, we have taken as the basis of our investigations, in accordance with the general scheme of this work, the statistical frequency of the events referred to; but it was also shown that each formula, when established, might with equal propriety be expressed in the more familiar form of a fraction representing the ‘chance’ of the occurrence of the particular event. The question may therefore now be raised, Can those writers who (as described in the last chapter) take as the primary subject of the science not the degree of statistical frequency, but the quantity of belief, with equal consistency make this the basis of their rules, and so also regard the fraction expressive of the chance as a merely synonymous expression? De Morgan maintains that whereas in ordinary logic we suppose the premises to be absolutely true, the province of Probability is to study ‘the effect which partial belief of the premises produces with respect to the conclusion.’ It would appear therefore as if in strictness we ought on this view to be able to determine this consequent diminution at first hand, from introspection of the mind, that is of the conceptions and beliefs which it entertains; instead of making any recourse to statistics to tell us how much we ought to believe the conclusion.
Any readers who have concurred with me in the general results of the last chapter, will naturally agree in the conclusion that nothing deserving the name of logical science can be extracted from any results of appeal to our consciousness as to the quantity of belief we entertain of this or that proposition. Suppose, for example, that one person in 100 dies on the sea passage out to India, and that one in 9 dies during a 5 years residence there. It would commonly be said that the chance that any one, who is now going out, has of living to start homewards 5 years hence, is 88/100; for his chance of getting there is 99/100; and of his surviving, if he gets there, 8/9; hence the result or dependent event is got by multiplying these fractions together, which gives 88/100. Here the real basis of the reasoning is statistical, and the processes or results are merely translated afterwards into fractions. But can we say the same when we look at the belief side of the question? I quite admit the psychological fact that we have degrees of belief, more or less corresponding to the frequency of the events to which they refer. In the above example, for instance, we should undoubtedly admit on enquiry that our belief in the man's return was affected by each of the risks in question, so that we had less expectation of it than if he were subject to either risk separately; that is, we should in some way compound the risks. But what I cannot recognise is that we should be able to perform the process with any approach to accuracy without appeal to the statistics, or that, even supposing we could do so, we should have any guarantee of the correctness of the result without similar appeal. It appears to me in fact that but little meaning, and certainly no security, can be attained by so regarding the process of inference. The probabilities expressed as degrees of belief, just as those which are expressed as fractions, must, when we are put upon our justification, first be translated into their corresponding facts of statistical frequency of occurrence of the events, and then the inferences must be drawn and justified there. This part of the operation, as we have already shown, is mostly carried on by the ordinary rules of arithmetic. When we have obtained our conclusion we may, if we please, translate it back again into the subjective form, just as we can and do for convenience into the fractional, but I do not see how the process of inference can be conceived as taking place in that form, and still less how any proof of it can thus be given. If therefore the process of inference be so expressed it must be regarded as a symbolical process, symbolical of such an inference about things as has been described above, and it therefore seems to me more advisable to state and expound it in this latter form.