David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Explorations:67-94 (manuscript)
One tradition of solving the surprise exam paradox, started by Robert Binkley and continued by Doris Olin, Roy Sorensen and Jelle Gerbrandy, construes surpriseepistemically and relies upon the oddity of propositions akin to G. E. Moore’s paradoxical ‘p and I don’t believe that p.’ Here I argue for an analysis that evolves from Olin’s. My analysis is different from hers or indeed any of those in the tradition because it explicitly recognizes that there are two distinct reductios at work in the student’s paradoxical argument against the teacher. The weak reductio is easy to fault. Its invalidity determines the structure of the strong reductio, so-calledbecause it is more difficult to refute, but ultimately unsound because of reasons associated with Moore-paradoxicality. Previous commentators have not always appreciated this difference, with the result that the strong reductio is not addressed, or the response to the weak reductio is superfl uous. This is one reason why other analyses in the tradition are vulnerable to objections to which mine is not.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(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
John N. Williams (2012). Moore-Paradoxical Belief, Conscious Belief and the Epistemic Ramsey Test. Synthese 188 (2):231-246.
Similar books and articles
Graham Priest (2000). The Logic of Backwards Inductions. Economics and Philosophy 16 (2):267-285.
Kenneth G. Ferguson (1991). Equivocation in the Surprise Exam Paradox. Southern Journal of Philosophy 29 (3):291-302.
Ned Hall (1999). How to Set a Surprise Exam. Mind 108 (432):647-703.
Luc Bovens (1997). The Backward Induction Argument for the Finite Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Surprise Exam Paradox. Analysis 57 (3):179–186.
José Luis Ferreira & Jesús Zamora Bonilla (2008). The Surprise Exam Paradox, Rationality, and Pragmatics: A Simple Game‐Theoretic Analysis. Journal of Economic Methodology 15 (3):285-299.
Elliott Sober (1998). To Give a Surprise Exam, Use Game Theory. Synthese 115 (3):355-373.
Ken Levy (2009). The Solution to the Surprise Exam Paradox. Southern Journal of Philosophy 47 (2):131-158.
John N. Williams (2007). The Surprise Exam Paradox. Journal of Philosophical Research 32:67-94.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #122,977 of 1,140,344 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #140,127 of 1,140,344 )
How can I increase my downloads?