Paradox Lost, but in which Envelope?
Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2 (3):353-362 (2002)
| Abstract | The aim of this paper is to diagnose the so-called two envelopes paradox. Many writers have claimed that there is something genuinely paradoxical in the situation with the two envelopes, and some writers are now developing non-standards theories of expected utility. I claim that there is no paradox for expected utility theory as I understand that theory, and that contrary claims are confused. Expected utility theory is completely unaffected by the two-envelope paradox | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
|
| Through your library | Configure |
Michael Clark & Nicholas Shackel (2000). The Two-Envelope Paradox. Mind 109 (435):415--442.
Bernard D. Katz & Doris Olin (2007). A Tale of Two Envelopes. Mind 116 (464):903 - 926.
Christopher J. G. Meacham & Jonathan Weisberg (2003). Clark and Shackel on the Two-Envelope Paradox. Mind 112 (448):685-689.
Gary Malinas (2003). Two Envelope Problems and the Roles of Ignorance. Acta Analytica 18 (1-2):217-225.
Terry Horgan (2000). The Two-Envelope Paradox, Nonstandard Expected Utility, and the Intensionality of Probability. Noûs 34 (4):578–603.
Daniel Hunter & Reed Richter (1978). Counterfactuals and Newcomb's Paradox. Synthese 39 (2):249 - 261.
Gary Malinas (2006). Two Envelope Problems. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 9:153-158.
Casper J. Albers, Barteld P. Kooi & Willem Schaafsma (2005). Trying to Resolve the Two-Envelope Problem. Synthese 145 (1):89 - 109.
B. D. Katz & D. Olin (2010). Conditionals, Probabilities, and Utilities: More on Two Envelopes. Mind 119 (473):171-183.
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-12-01Total downloads2 ( #232,382 of 549,069 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |

