Paper detail

Mr. Bayes and the classics: a suggested interpretation

The main hypothesis about Thomas Bayes's intentions to write his famous Essay on probability is that he wanted to refute the arguments of David Hume against the reliability of the occurrence of miracles, published in 1748. In this paper we argue that it was not Bayes's intention to rebut Hume but that his interest on the "inverse problem" came about as result of his study of the second edition of Abraham De Moivre's book, The Doctrine of Chances, published in 1738. A possible communication of Bayes's breakthrough might have annoyed De Moivre, leading to a response written for Bayes in the third edition of De Moivre's book, published in 1756. Among other points, the response claims that De Moivre was the first to solve the mentioned inverse problem. Under this perspective Richard Price's letter, written as preface to Bayes's essay, has a new interpretation, appearing also as a defense of Bayes premiership on a satisfactory or proper solution.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.