Lotteries, Quasi-Lotteries, and Scepticism

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (2):335 - 352 (2012)
I seem to know that I won't experience spaceflight but also that if I win the lottery, then I will take a flight into space. Suppose I competently deduce from these propositions that I won't win the lottery. Competent deduction from known premises seems to yield knowledge of the deduced conclusion. So it seems that I know that I won't win the lottery; but it also seems clear that I don't know this, despite the minuscule probability of my winning (if I have a lottery ticket). So we have a puzzle. It seems to generalize, for analogues of the lottery-proposition threaten almost all ordinary knowledge attributions. For example, my apparent knowledge that my bike is parked outside seems threatened by the possibility that it's been stolen since I parked it, a proposition with a low but non-zero probability; and it seems that I don't know this proposition to be false. Familiar solutions to this family of puzzles incur unacceptable costs?either by rejecting deductive closure for knowledge, or by yielding untenable consequences for ordinary attributions of knowledge or of ignorance. After canvassing and criticizing these solutions, I offer a new solution free of these costs. Knowledge that p requires an explanatory link between the fact that p and the belief that p. This necessary but insufficient condition on knowledge distinguishes actual lottery cases from typical, apparently analogous ?quasi-lottery? cases. It does yield scepticism about my not winning the lottery and not experiencing spaceflight, but the scepticism doesn't generalize to quasi-lottery cases such as that involving my bike
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/00048402.2011.571268
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 24,411
External links
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
Gilbert Harman (1973). Thought. Princeton University Press.
Chris Tucker (2010). When Transmission Fails. Philosophical Review 119 (4):497-529.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Donald Smith (2005). Knowledge and Lotteries. Philosophical Books 46 (2):123-131.
Verna V. Gehring (1999). The American State Lottery. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 13 (2):223-238.
Barbara Goodwin (1992). Justice by Lottery. University of Chicago Press.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

20 ( #232,633 of 1,924,713 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #417,761 of 1,924,713 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.