  Automated reasoning about uncertain knowledge has many applications. One
difficulty when developing such systems is the lack of a completely
satisfactory integration of logic and probability. We address this problem
directly. Expressive languages like higher-order logic are ideally suited for
representing and reasoning about structured knowledge. Uncertain knowledge can
be modeled by using graded probabilities rather than binary truth-values. The
main technical problem studied in this paper is the following: Given a set of
sentences, each having some probability of being true, what probability should
be ascribed to other (query) sentences? A natural wish-list, among others, is
that the probability distribution (i) is consistent with the knowledge base,
(ii) allows for a consistent inference procedure and in particular (iii)
reduces to deductive logic in the limit of probabilities being 0 and 1, (iv)
allows (Bayesian) inductive reasoning and (v) learning in the limit and in
particular (vi) allows confirmation of universally quantified
hypotheses/sentences. We translate this wish-list into technical requirements
for a prior probability and show that probabilities satisfying all our criteria
exist. We also give explicit constructions and several general
characterizations of probabilities that satisfy some or all of the criteria and
various (counter) examples. We also derive necessary and sufficient conditions
for extending beliefs about finitely many sentences to suitable probabilities
over all sentences, and in particular least dogmatic or least biased ones. We
conclude with a brief outlook on how the developed theory might be used and
approximated in autonomous reasoning agents. Our theory is a step towards a
globally consistent and empirically satisfactory unification of probability and
logic.
