Hanti Lin

Hanti Lin

This article reviews and develops an epistemological tradition in the philosophy of science, known as convergentism, which holds that inference methods should be assessed based on their ability to converge to the truth across a range of possible scenarios. Emphasis is placed on its historical origins in the work of C. S. Peirce and its recent developments in formal epistemology and data science (including statistics and machine learning). Comparisons are made with three other traditions: (1) explanationism, which holds that theory choice should be guided by a theory's overall balance of explanatory virtues, such as simplicity and fit with data; (2) instrumentalism, which maintains that scientific inference should be driven by the goal of obtaining useful models rather than true theories; and (3) Bayesianism, which shifts the focus from all-or-nothing beliefs to degrees of belief.

Hanti Lin

The integration of the history and philosophy of statistics was initiated at least by Hacking (1975) and advanced by Hacking (1990), Mayo (1996), and Zabell (2005), but it has not received sustained follow-up. Yet such integration is more urgent than ever, as the recent success of artificial intelligence has been driven largely by machine learning -- a field historically developed alongside statistics. Today, the boundary between statistics and machine learning is increasingly blurred. What we now need is integration, twice over: of history and philosophy, and of two fields they engage -- statistics and machine learning. I present a case study of a philosophical idea in machine learning (and in formal epistemology) whose root can be traced back to an often under-appreciated insight in Neyman and Pearson's 1936 work (a follow-up to their 1933 classic). This leads to the articulation of an epistemological principle -- largely implicit in, but shared by, the practices of frequentist statistics and machine learning -- which I call achievabilism: the thesis that the correct standard for assessing non-deductive inference methods should not be fixed, but should instead be sensitive to what is achievable in specific problem contexts. Another integration also emerges at the level of methodology, combining two ends of the philosophy of science spectrum: history and philosophy of science on the one hand, and formal epistemology on the other hand.

Hanti Lin

The problem of the priors is well known: it concerns the challenge of identifying norms that govern one's prior credences. I argue that a key to addressing this problem lies in considering what I call the problem of the posteriors -- the challenge of identifying norms that directly govern one's posterior credences, which backward induce some norms on the priors via the diachronic requirement of conditionalization. This forward-looking approach can be summarized as: Think ahead, work backward. Although this idea can be traced to Freedman (1963), Carnap (1963), and Shimony (1970), I believe that it has not received enough attention. In this paper, I initiate a systematic defense of forward-looking Bayesianism, addressing potential objections from more traditional views (both subjectivist and objectivist). I also develop a specific approach to forward-looking Bayesianism -- one that values the convergence of posterior credences to the truth, and treats it as a fundamental rather than derived norm. This approach, called convergentist Bayesianism, is argued to be crucial for a Bayesian foundation of Ockham's razor in statistics and machine learning.

Hanti Lin

The debate between scientific realism and anti-realism remains at a stalemate, making reconciliation seem hopeless. Yet, important work remains: exploring a common ground, even if only to uncover deeper points of disagreement and, ideally, to benefit both sides of the debate. I propose such a common ground. Specifically, many anti-realists, such as instrumentalists, have yet to seriously engage with Sober's call to justify their preferred version of Ockham's razor through a positive account. Meanwhile, realists face a similar challenge: providing a non-circular explanation of how their version of Ockham's razor connects to truth. The common ground I propose addresses these challenges for both sides; the key is to leverage the idea that everyone values some truths and to draw on insights from scientific fields that study scientific inference -- namely, statistics and machine learning. This common ground also isolates a distinctively epistemic root of the irreconcilability in the realism debate.

Hanti Lin

While the traditional conception of inductive logic is Carnapian, I develop a Peircean alternative and use it to unify formal learning theory, statistics, and a significant part of machine learning: supervised learning. Some crucial standards for evaluating non-deductive inferences have been assumed separately in those areas, but can actually be justified by a unifying principle.

Hanti Lin

The 2021 Nobel Prize in Economics recognized an epistemology of causal inference based on the Rubin causal model (Rubin 1974), which merits broader attention in philosophy. This model, in fact, presupposes a logical principle of counterfactuals, Conditional Excluded Middle (CEM), the locus of a pivotal debate between Stalnaker (1968) and Lewis (1973) on the semantics of counterfactuals. Proponents of CEM should recognize that this connection points to a new argument for CEM -- a Quine-Putnam indispensability argument grounded in the Nobel-winning applications of the Rubin model in health and social sciences. To advance the dialectic, I challenge this argument with an updated Rubin causal model that retains its successes while dispensing with CEM. This novel approach combines the strengths of the Rubin causal model and a causal model familiar in philosophy, the causal Bayes net. The takeaway: deductive logic and inductive inference, often studied in isolation, are deeply interconnected.

Hanti Lin, Jiji Zhang

Consider the problem of learning, from non-experimental data, the causal (Markov equivalence) structure of the true, unknown causal Bayesian network (CBN) on a given, fixed set of (categorical) variables. This learning problem is known to be so hard that there is no learning algorithm that converges to the truth for all possible CBNs (on the given set of variables). So the convergence property has to be sacrificed for some CBNs---but for which? In response, the standard practice has been to design and employ learning algorithms that secure the convergence property for at least all the CBNs that satisfy the famous faithfulness condition, which implies sacrificing the convergence property for some CBNs that violate the faithfulness condition (Spirtes et al. 2000). This standard design practice can be justified by assuming---that is, accepting on faith---that the true, unknown CBN satisfies the faithfulness condition. But the real question is this: Is it possible to explain, without assuming the faithfulness condition or any of its weaker variants, why it is mandatory rather than optional to follow the standard design practice? This paper aims to answer the above question in the affirmative. We first define an array of modes of convergence to the truth as desiderata that might or might not be achieved by a causal learning algorithm. Those modes of convergence concern (i) how pervasive the domain of convergence is on the space of all possible CBNs and (ii) how uniformly the convergence happens. Then we prove a result to the following effect: for any learning algorithm that tackles the causal learning problem in question, if it achieves the best achievable mode of convergence (considered in this paper), then it must follow the standard design practice of converging to the truth for at least all CBNs that satisfy the faithfulness condition---it is a requirement, not an option.