B. Russell’s Warning, that Ramsey’s Work on Probability (and Hence Statistics) Had the Least Value, When Compared to Any of His Other Contributions, Leads to the Following Conclusion: None of Ramsey’s 1922 and 1926 Attacks on Keynes’s Logical Theory of Probability in the a Treatise on Probability Are Correct

None of the points that Ramsey thought that he was making against Keynes’s analysis of his logical theory of probability in 1922 and 1926 are sound or valid. Every single criticism directed against Keynes’s A Treatise on Probability can easily be shown to be an error of commission on Ramsey’s part or an error of omission if the reader of Ramsey’s papers containing the criticisms had also read Part II of Keynes’s A Treatise on Probability. A reader of the A Treatise on Probability would not be able to be bluffed by the universal claim that Ramsey was an 18 year old genius whose critique was so over whelming that Keynes gave up without a fight. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. F P Ramsey’s critique is so extremely poor that, if Keynes had responded, then that response would have put an end to Ramsey’s academic career. It is impossible for a reader of Part II of the A Treatise on Probability to regard Ramsey’s critique as senseless and intellectually worthless. Therefore ,every philosopher, economist, historian, psychologist, political scientist or decision theorist, who has based his critique of the Keynes’s A Treatise on Probability on Ramsey’s reviews, is also wrong. Ramsey never read the A Treatise on Probability. Ramsey read very small bits and pieces that he took completely out of context and then read into them his own very flawed, bizarre interpretation of what he thought Keynes must have been saying and meaning. This is precisely the approach taken by all academic economists when faced with Keynes’s General Theory. The academic articles and books written on Keynes’s Logical Theory of Probability by all academics, since all academic work is based on Ramsey’s errors, is simply not worth taking into consideration. Academics need to start from scratch, back in 1921, and go back to the Broad, Edgeworth and Russell reviews and build up on them. No academic economist or philosopher writing on Keynes ever read Part II of the A Treatise on Probability. Good examples of this, among many, would be Mellor, Monk, and Braithwaite among the philosophers and Carabelli, O’Donnell and Skidelsky among economists. A crucial error made by all academic economists and philosophers since 1922 is to interpret Keynes phrase”…I yield to Ramsey-I think he is right” as a conclusion on Keynes’s part regarding Ramsey’s critique of Keynes’s logical theory of probability in the A Treatise on Probability when in reality it actually is Keynes’s acceptance of Ramsey’s superior foundations for precise probability, based on Ramsey’s betting quotient approach, coherence and Dutch book arguments ,compared to the existing 1931 frequency foundation for precise probability that was accepted at the time Keynes was writing . Keynes’s work, based on imprecise, inexact, non additive, interval valued probabilities and decision weights, is in complete conflict with Ramsey’s precise, exact, additive approach.