A Review of the Lottery Paradox

In William Harper & Gregory Wheeler (eds.), Probability and Inference: Essays in Honour of Henry E. Kyburg, Jr. College Publications (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Henry Kyburg’s lottery paradox (1961, p. 197) arises from considering a fair 1000 ticket lottery that has exactly one winning ticket. If this much is known about the execution of the lottery it is therefore rational to accept that one ticket will win. Suppose that an event is very likely if the probability of its occurring is greater than 0.99. On these grounds it is presumed rational to accept the proposition that ticket 1 of the lottery will not win. Since the lottery is fair, it is rational to accept that ticket 2 won’t win either—indeed, it is rational to accept for any individual ticket i of the lottery that ticket i will not win. However, accepting that ticket 1 won’t win, accepting that ticket 2 won’t win, . . . , and accepting that ticket 1000 won’t win entails that it is rational to accept that no ticket will win, which entails that it is rational to accept the contradictory proposition that one ticket wins and no ticket wins

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,561

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

How to mistake a trivial fact about probability for a substantive fact about justified belief.Jonathan Sutton - unknown
Cut-off points for the rational believer.Lina Maria Lissia - 2022 - Synthese 200 (2):1-19.
The epistemic paradoxes.Jonathan Kvanvig - unknown
The lottery paradox, knowledge, and rationality.Dana K. Nelkin - 2000 - Philosophical Review 109 (3):373-409.
Lotteries, Quasi-Lotteries, and Scepticism.Eugene Mills - 2012 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (2):335-352.
Reconsidering the lessons of the lottery for knowledge and belief.Glenn Ross - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 161 (1):37-46.
The epistemic virtues of consistency.Sharon Ryan - 1996 - Synthese 109 (2):121-141.
Lotteries, knowledge, and inconsistent belief: why you know your ticket will lose.Mylan Engel - 2020 - Synthese 198 (8):7891-7921.
Semantic Stipulation and Knowledge De Re.Chris Tillman & Joshua Spencer - 2012 - In Bill Kabasenche, Michael O'Rourke & Matthew Slater (eds.), Reference and Referring: Topics in Contemporary Philosophy, Volume 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 119-148.
Fallibilism and the Lottery paradox.Baron Reed - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 53:217-225.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-08-14

Downloads
191 (#126,697)

6 months
7 (#655,041)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Gregory Wheeler
Frankfurt School Of Finance And Management

Citations of this work

Reducing belief simpliciter to degrees of belief.Hannes Leitgeb - 2013 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 164 (12):1338-1389.
The Psychological Dimension of the Lottery Paradox.Jennifer Nagel - 2021 - In Igor Douven (ed.), The Lottery Paradox. Cambridge University Press.
Closure and Epistemic Modals.Justin Bledin & Tamar Lando - 2018 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 97 (1):3-22.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Can we do without pragmatic encroachment.Brian Weatherson - 2005 - Philosophical Perspectives 19 (1):417–443.
The Epistemology of Belief and the Epistemology of Degrees of Belief.Richard Foley - 1992 - American Philosophical Quarterly 29 (2):111 - 124.
A logic for default reasoning.Ray Reiter - 1980 - Artificial Intelligence 13 (1-2):81-137.

View all 18 references / Add more references