Graduate studies at Western
Mind 116 (464):903-926 (2007)
|Abstract||This paper deals with the two-envelope paradox. Two main formulations of the paradoxical reasoning are distinguished, which differ according to the partition of possibilities employed. We argue that in the first formulation the conditionals required for the utility assignment are problematic; the error is identified as a fallacy of conditional reasoning. We go on to consider the second formulation, where the epistemic status of certain singular propositions becomes relevant; our diagnosis is that the states considered do not exhaust the possibilities. Thus, on our approach to the paradox, the fallacy, in each formulation, is found in the reasoning underlying the relevant utility matrix; in both cases, the paradoxical argument goes astray before one gets to questions of probability or calculations of expected utility|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael Clark & Nicholas Shackel (2000). The Two-Envelope Paradox. Mind 109 (435):415--442.
Reed Richter (1985). Rationality, Group Choice and Expected Utility. Synthese 63 (2):203 - 232.
Gary Malinas (2003). Two Envelope Problems and the Roles of Ignorance. Acta Analytica 18 (1-2):217-225.
Paul Syverson (2010). Opening Two Envelopes. Acta Analytica 25 (4):479-498.
P. A. Sutton (2010). The Epoch of Incredulity: A Response to Katz and Olin's 'A Tale of Two Envelopes'. Mind 119 (473):159-169.
B. D. Katz & D. Olin (2010). Conditionals, Probabilities, and Utilities: More on Two Envelopes. Mind 119 (473):171-183.
Olav Gjelsvik (2002). Paradox Lost, but in Which Envelope? Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2 (3):353-362.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads29 ( #48,105 of 739,304 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,304 )
How can I increase my downloads?