Journal of Philosophical Research 34:263-278 (2009)
|Abstract||In this paper, I present a solution to the Doomsday argument based on a third type of solution, by contrast to, on the one hand, the Carter-Leslie view and, on the other hand, the Eckhardt et al. analysis. I begin by strengthening both competing models by highlighting some variations of their original models, which renders them less vulnerable to several objections. I then describe a third line of solution, which incorporates insights from both Leslie and Eckhardt’s models and fits more adequately with the human situation corresponding to DA. I argue then that this two-sided analogy casts new light on the reference class problem. This leads finally to a novel formulation of the argument that could well be more plausible than the original one|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
Similar books and articles
Nick Bostrom & Milan M. Cirković (2003). The Doomsday Argument and the Self–Indication Assumption: Reply to Olum. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (210):83–91.
Mr István A. Aranyosi, The Doomsday Simulation Argument. Or Why Isn't the End Nigh, and You're Not Living in a Simulation.
Kevin B. Korb & Jonathan J. Oliver (1998). A Refutation of the Doomsday Argument. Mind 107 (426):403-410.
Alasdair M. Richmond (2008). Doomsday, Bishop Ussher and Simulated Worlds. Ratio 21 (2):201–217.
Timothy Chambers (2001). Do Doomsday's Proponents Think We Were Born Yesterday? Philosophy 76 (3):443-450.
Bradley Monton (2003). The Doomsday Argument Without Knowledge of Birth Rank. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (210):79–82.
N. Bostrom (1999). The Doomsday Argument is Alive and Kicking. Mind 108 (431):539-551.
Paul Franceschi, Une Application Des N-Univers a l'Argument de l'Apocalypse Et au Paradoxe de Goodman.
Paul Franceschi (1999). The Doomsday Argument and Hempel's Problem. [Journal (on-Line/Unpaginated)].
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #89,098 of 556,888 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,122 of 556,888 )
How can I increase my downloads?