|Abstract||Von Mises’ wine/water paradox has served as a foundation for detractors of the Principle of Indifference and logical probability. Mikkelson recently proposed a first solution, and here several additional solutions to the paradox are explained. Learning from the wine/water paradox, I will argue that it is meaningless to consider a particular probability apart from the sample space containing the probabilistic event in question.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Louis Marinoff (1994). A Resolution of Bertrand's Paradox. Philosophy of Science 61 (1):1-24.
Terence Penelhum (1991). Water Into Wine? International Studies in Philosophy 23 (1):128-129.
David Basinger (1990). Water Into Wine? Faith and Philosophy 7 (3):369-371.
Nicholas Shackel (2007). Bertrand's Paradox and the Principle of Indifference. Philosophy of Science 74 (2):150-175.
Sergio Wechsler, L. G. Esteves, A. Simonis & C. Peixoto (2005). Indifference, Neutrality and Informativeness: Generalizing the Three Prisoners Paradox. Synthese 143 (3):255 - 272.
Henry Laycock (2011). Every Sum or Parts Which Are Water is Water. Humana Mente 19 (1):41-55.
Amos Nathan (1986). How Not to Solve It. Philosophy of Science 53 (1):114-119.
Jeffrey M. Mikkelson (2004). Dissolving the Wine/Water Paradox. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (1):137-145.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads26 ( #48,417 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?