David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Logos and Episteme 3 (3):509-14 (2012)
Thomas Kroedel argues that we can solve a version of the lottery paradox if we identify justified beliefs with permissible beliefs. Since permissions do not agglomerate, we might grant that someone could justifiably believe any ticket in a large and fair lottery is a loser without being permitted to believe that all the tickets will lose. I shall argue that Kroedel’s solution fails. While permissions do not agglomerate, we would have too many permissions if we characterized justified belief as sufficiently probable belief. If we reject the idea that justified beliefs can be characterized as sufficiently probably beliefs, Kroedel’s solution is otiose because the paradox can be dissolved at the outset.
|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
Anna-Maria A. Eder (2015). No Match Point for the Permissibility Account. Erkenntnis 80 (3):657-673.
Similar books and articles
Thomas Kroedel (2012). The Lottery Paradox, Epistemic Justification and Permissibility. Analysis 72 (1):57-60.
Thomas Kroedel (2013). The Permissibility Solution to the Lottery Paradox – Reply to Littlejohn. Logos and Episteme 4 (1):103-111.
Sharon Ryan (1996). The Epistemic Virtues of Consistency. Synthese 109 (2):121-141.
Sylvia Wenmackers (2011). Philosophy of Probability: Foundations, Epistemology, and Computation. Dissertation, University of Groningen
Jonathan Kvanvig (2012). Coherentism and Justified Inconsistent Beliefs: A Solution. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (1):21-41.
Jonathan Sutton, How to Mistake a Trivial Fact About Probability for a Substantive Fact About Justified Belief.
Christoph Kelp (2008). Classical Invariantism and the Puzzle of Fallibilism. Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (2):221-44.
Daniel Statman (2012). Supreme Emergencies and the Continuum Problem. Journal of Military Ethics 11 (4):287-298.
Dylan Dodd (2012). Safety, Skepticism, and Lotteries. Erkenntnis 77 (1):95-120.
Colin Cheyne (2009). A Paradox of Justified Believing. Ratio 22 (3):278-290.
Igor Douven (2007). A Pragmatic Dissolution of Harman's Paradox. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (2):326–345.
Igor Douven (2007). A Pragmatic Dissolution of Harman's Paradox. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (2):326-345.
Added to index2012-09-30
Total downloads49 ( #85,493 of 1,796,251 )
Recent downloads (6 months)15 ( #47,748 of 1,796,251 )
How can I increase my downloads?