David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
According to the Doomsday Argument the probability of an impending extinction of mankind is much higher than we think. The adduced reason is that in our assignment of probabilities to soon or not so soon doom we have not fully taken into account that we live in the specific year 2001. This is relevant information, because if I consider myself as an arbitrary member of the human race I have a much higher probability of finding myself living in 2001 on the hypothesis of a soon extinction, Doom Soon, than on the hypothesis of Doom Late---according to the latter hypothesis there are so many more years I could have found myself living in. Accordingly, Bayesian reasoning leads to a posterior probability of the Doom Soon hypothesis, after I have taken the evidence of my birth date fully into account, that is much higher than the prior probability. I show that the Argument is nothing but a rather trivial mathematical exercise in the calculation of posterior from prior probabilities; it is only about the relation between these probabilities and is silent about the concrete values these probabilities should have. Nothing in the Argument supports the conclusion its proponents think it supports, namely that Doom Soon is much more probable than we ordinarily think. The Argument is formally valid, but ineffective.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jiaying Zhao, Anuj Shah & Daniel Osherson (2009). On the Provenance of Judgments of Conditional Probability. Cognition 113 (1):26-36.
Paul Bartha & Christopher Hitchcock (1999). The Shooting-Room Paradox and Conditionalizing on Measurably Challenged Sets. Synthese 118 (3):403-437.
Niki Pfeifer & G. D. Kleiter (2007). Human Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities: Modus Ponens and Denying the Antecedent. In Proceedings of the 5 T H International Symposium on Imprecise Probability: Theories and Applications. 347--356.
Tomoji Shogenji (2007). Why Does Coherence Appear Truth-Conducive? Synthese 157 (3):361 - 372.
Martin H. Krieger (1995). Could the Probability of Doom Be Zero or One? Journal of Philosophy 92 (7):382-387.
Peter Achinstein (1994). Stronger Evidence. Philosophy of Science 61 (3):329-350.
Paul Bartha & Christopher Hitchcock (1999). No One Knows the Date or the Hour: An Unorthodox Application of Rev. Bayes's Theorem. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):353.
Dennis Dieks (2007). Reasoning About the Future: Doom and Beauty. Synthese 156 (3):427-439.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #378,786 of 1,934,422 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #269,405 of 1,934,422 )
How can I increase my downloads?