Agency and the metalottery fallacy

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 80 (4):440 – 464 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In deciding whether an event was caused by chance or agency, it is incorrect to attribute the event to chance on the grounds that there have been enough broadly similar situations in the universe to provide opportunities for the event to occur by chance somewhere or other. In order to include a set of instances in an inference as opportunities for the event to occur by chance, we must calculate the impact of the other proposed opportunities upon the prior probabilities of chance and design and argue that the absence of a result confirming design in the other instances directly drives down the prior for design in the instance at hand. This approach forces us to narrow our focus to those instances which are directly relevant to a causal inference about the case at issue, and it avoids confusions generated by treating all broadly similar instances as a lottery that is nearly guaranteed to have a winner if the set is large enough.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,571

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
14 (#983,112)

6 months
4 (#779,649)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Likelihoods, Multiple Universes, and Epistemic Context.Lydia McGrew - 2005 - Philosophia Christi 7 (2):475 - 481.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Design Argument.Elliott Sober - 2019 - Cambridge University Press.
The design argument.Elliott Sober - 2004 - In William Mann (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. pp. 117–147.

Add more references