A generalised lottery paradox for infinite probability spaces

Smith, M. (2010) A generalised lottery paradox for infinite probability spaces. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61(4), pp. 821-831. (doi: 10.1093/bjps/axq019)

[img]
Preview
Text
44892.pdf - Accepted Version

150kB

Abstract

Many epistemologists have responded to the lottery paradox by proposing formal rules according to which high probability defeasibly warrants acceptance. Douven and Williamson (2006) present an ingenious argument purporting to show that such rules invariably trivialise, in that they reduce to the claim that a probability of 1 warrants acceptance. Douven and Williamson’s argument does, however, rest upon significant assumptions – amongst them a relatively strong structural assumption to the effect that the underlying probability space is both finite and uniform. In this paper, I will show that something very like Douven and Williamson’s argument can in fact survive with much weaker structural assumptions – and, in particular, can apply to infinite probability spaces.

Item Type:Articles
Additional Information:This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61(4):821-831 is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axq019
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Smith, Dr Martin
Authors: Smith, M.
Subjects:B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > B Philosophy (General)
College/School:College of Arts & Humanities > School of Humanities > Philosophy
Journal Name:British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
ISSN:0007-0882
ISSN (Online):1464-3537
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2010 The Author
First Published:First published in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61(4):821-831
Publisher Policy:Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record