The lottery paradox shows that the following three individually highly plausible theses are jointly incompatible: (i) highly probable propositions are justifiably believable, (ii) justified believability is closed under conjunction introduction, (iii) known contradictions are not justifiably believable. This paper argues that a satisfactory solution to the lottery paradox must reject (i) as versions of the paradox can be generated without appeal to either (ii) or (iii) and proposes a new solution to the paradox in terms of a novel account of justified believability
Many epistemologists have responded to the lottery paradox by proposing formal rules according to wh...
Kiesewetter B. Can the Lottery Paradox be Solved by Identifying Epistemic Justification with Epistem...
I show that the Lottery Paradox is just a version of the Sorites, and argue that this should modify ...
The lottery paradox shows that the following three individually highly plausible theses are jointly ...
A ‘lottery belief’ is a belief that a particular ticket has lost a large, fair lottery, based on not...
It is well-known that versions of the lottery paradox and of the preface paradox show that the follo...
The lottery paradox occurs when we combine two plausible claims about epistemic justification: Proba...
Thomas Kroedel argues that the lottery paradox can be solved by identifying epistemic justification ...
According to the principle of Conjunction Closure, if one has justification for believing each of a ...
I argue that we should solve the Lottery Paradox by denying that rational belief is closed under cla...
In a recent article, Douven and Williamson offer both (i) a rebuttal of various recent suggested suf...
Fair lotteries offer familiar ways to pose a number of epistemo-logical problems, prominently those ...
We present a probabilistic justification logic, PPJ, as a framework for uncertain reasoning about r...
Thomas Kroedel argues that the lottery paradox can be solved by identifying epistemic justification ...
This paper is concerned with formal solutions to the lottery paradox on which high probability defea...
Many epistemologists have responded to the lottery paradox by proposing formal rules according to wh...
Kiesewetter B. Can the Lottery Paradox be Solved by Identifying Epistemic Justification with Epistem...
I show that the Lottery Paradox is just a version of the Sorites, and argue that this should modify ...
The lottery paradox shows that the following three individually highly plausible theses are jointly ...
A ‘lottery belief’ is a belief that a particular ticket has lost a large, fair lottery, based on not...
It is well-known that versions of the lottery paradox and of the preface paradox show that the follo...
The lottery paradox occurs when we combine two plausible claims about epistemic justification: Proba...
Thomas Kroedel argues that the lottery paradox can be solved by identifying epistemic justification ...
According to the principle of Conjunction Closure, if one has justification for believing each of a ...
I argue that we should solve the Lottery Paradox by denying that rational belief is closed under cla...
In a recent article, Douven and Williamson offer both (i) a rebuttal of various recent suggested suf...
Fair lotteries offer familiar ways to pose a number of epistemo-logical problems, prominently those ...
We present a probabilistic justification logic, PPJ, as a framework for uncertain reasoning about r...
Thomas Kroedel argues that the lottery paradox can be solved by identifying epistemic justification ...
This paper is concerned with formal solutions to the lottery paradox on which high probability defea...
Many epistemologists have responded to the lottery paradox by proposing formal rules according to wh...
Kiesewetter B. Can the Lottery Paradox be Solved by Identifying Epistemic Justification with Epistem...
I show that the Lottery Paradox is just a version of the Sorites, and argue that this should modify ...