Journal of Economic Methodology 15 (3):285-299 (2008)
The surprise exam paradox has attracted the attention of prominent logicians, mathematicians and philosophers for decades. Although the paradox itself has been resolved at least since Quine, some aspects of it are still being discussed. In this paper we propose, following Sober, to translate the paradox into the language of game theory to clarify these aspects. Our main conclusions are that a much simpler game?theoretic analysis of the paradox is possible, which solves most of the puzzles related to it, and that this way of analysing the paradox can also throw light on our comprehension of the pragmatics of linguistic communication
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Solution to the Surprise Exam Paradox.Ken Levy - 2009 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 47 (2):131-158.
The Backward Induction Argument for the Finite Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Surprise Exam Paradox.Luc Bovens - 1997 - Analysis 57 (3):179–186.
The Surprise Exam Paradox: Disentangling Two Reductios.John N. Williams - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Research 32:67-94.
Equivocation in the Surprise Exam Paradox.Kenneth G. Ferguson - 1991 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 29 (3):291-302.
The Surprise Examination Paradox and the Second Incompleteness Theorem.Shira Kritchman & Ran Raz - unknown
On Two Versions of 'the Surprise Examination Paradox'.Leo K. C. Cheung - 2013 - Philosophia 41 (1):159-170.
Game Theory Meets Threshold Analysis: Reappraising the Paradoxes of Anarchy and Revolution.Peter Vanderschraaf - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4):579-617.
Added to index2012-02-20
Total downloads401 ( #6,071 of 2,164,552 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #50,926 of 2,164,552 )
How can I increase my downloads?