We provide a 'verisimilitudinarian' analysis of the
well-known Linda paradox or conjunction fallacy,
i.e., the fact that most people judge the
probability of the conjunctive statement "Linda
is a bank teller and is active in the feminist
movement" (B & F) as more probable than the
isolated statement "Linda is a bank teller" (B),
contrary to an uncontroversial
principle of probability theory.
The basic idea is that experimental participants
may judge B & F a better hypothesis about Linda
as compared to B because they evaluate B & F as
more verisimilar than B.
In fact, the hypothesis "feminist bank teller",
while less likely to be true than "bank teller",
may well be a better approximation to the truth