How to expect a surprising exam

Synthese 194 (8):3101-3133 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper, we provide a Bayesian analysis of the well-known surprise exam paradox. Central to our analysis is a probabilistic account of what it means for the student to accept the teacher's announcement that he will receive a surprise exam. According to this account, the student can be said to have accepted the teacher's announcement provided he adopts a subjective probability distribution relative to which he expects to receive the exam on a day on which he expects not to receive it. We show that as long as expectation is not equated with subjective certainty there will be contexts in which it is possible for the student to accept the teacher's announcement, in this sense. In addition, we show how a Bayesian modeling of the scenario can yield plausible explanations of the following three intuitive claims: (1) the teacher's announcement becomes easier to accept the more days there are in class; (2) a strict interpretation of the teacher's announcement does not provide the student with any categorical information as to the date of the exam; and (3) the teacher's announcement contains less information about the date of the exam the more days there are in class. To conclude, we show how the surprise exam paradox can be seen as one among the larger class of paradoxes of doxastic fallibilism, foremost among which is the paradox of the preface.

Similar books and articles

The Solution to the Surprise Exam Paradox.Ken Levy - 2009 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 47 (2):131-158.
How to set a surprise exam.Ned Hall - 1999 - Mind 108 (432):647-703.
Logic and the Surprise Exam Paradox.Margarita Vázquez - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 13:121-127.
The Surprise Exam Paradox.John N. Williams - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Research 32:67-94.
The Surprise Exam Paradox: Disentangling Two Reductios.John N. Williams - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Research 32:67-94.
Epistemic Logic and Epistemology.Wesley H. Holliday - 2018 - In Sven Ove Hansson Vincent F. Hendricks (ed.), Handbook of Formal Philosophy. Springer. pp. 351-369.
Equivocation in the surprise exam paradox.Kenneth G. Ferguson - 1991 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 29 (3):291-302.
Student Perceptions of Faculty Use of Cheating Deterrents.Robert Liebler - 2012 - Journal of Academic Ethics 10 (4):327-333.
The goals and merits of a business ethics competency exam.Earl W. Spurgin - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 50 (3):279-288.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-04-12

Downloads
879 (#15,882)

6 months
113 (#32,617)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Brian Kim
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Anubav Vasudevan
University of Chicago

Citations of this work

Pragmatic infallibilism.Brian Kim - 2023 - Asian Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):1-22.
From probabilities to categorical beliefs: Going beyond toy models.Igor Douven & Hans Rott - 2018 - Journal of Logic and Computation 28 (6):1099-1124.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Knowledge and its limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Knowledge and Its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Philosophy 76 (297):460-464.
Knowledge and Its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2003 - Philosophical Quarterly 53 (210):105-116.
Knowledge and Its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2005 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (2):452-458.

View all 26 references / Add more references