Ultralarge lotteries: Analyzing the Lottery Paradox using non-standard analysis

Journal of Applied Logic 11 (4):452-467 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A popular way to relate probabilistic information to binary rational beliefs is the Lockean Thesis, which is usually formalized in terms of thresholds. This approach seems far from satisfactory: the value of the thresholds is not well-specified and the Lottery Paradox shows that the model violates the Conjunction Principle. We argue that the Lottery Paradox is a symptom of a more fundamental and general problem, shared by all threshold-models that attempt to put an exact border on something that is intrinsically vague. We propose application of the language of relative analysis—a type of non-standard analysis—to formulate a new model for rational belief, called Stratified Belief. This contextualist model seems well-suited to deal with a concept of beliefs based on probabilities ‘sufficiently close to unity’ and satisfies a moderately weakened form of the Conjunction Principle. We also propose an adaptation of the model that is able to deal with beliefs that are less firm than ‘almost certainty’. The adapted version is also of interest for the epistemicist account of vagueness.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Ultralarge and infinite lotteries.Sylvia Wenmackers - 2012 - In B. Van Kerkhove, T. Libert, G. Vanpaemel & P. Marage (eds.), Logic, Philosophy and History of Science in Belgium II (Proceedings of the Young Researchers Days 2010). Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten.
The Sequential Lottery Paradox.I. Douven - 2012 - Analysis 72 (1):55-57.
Fair infinite lotteries.Sylvia Wenmackers & Leon Horsten - 2013 - Synthese 190 (1):37-61.
The Lottery Paradox Generalized?Jake Chandler - 2010 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (3):667-679.
Lotteries, Probabilities, and Permissions.Clayton Littlejohn - 2012 - Logos and Episteme 3 (3):509-14.
Fallibilism and the Lottery paradox.Baron Reed - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 53:217-225.
The epistemic virtues of consistency.Sharon Ryan - 1996 - Synthese 109 (2):121-141.
A Review of the Lottery Paradox.Gregory Wheeler - 2007 - In William Harper & Gregory Wheeler (eds.), Probability and Inference: Essays in Honour of Henry E. Kyburg, Jr. College Publications.
Generalizing the lottery paradox.Igor Douven & Timothy Williamson - 2006 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (4):755-779.
Safety, The Lottery Puzzle, and Misprinted Lottery Results.Mark McEvoy - 2009 - Journal of Philosophical Research 34:47-49.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-06-25

Downloads
72 (#223,965)

6 months
18 (#135,061)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

What conditional probability could not be.Alan Hájek - 2003 - Synthese 137 (3):273--323.
The paradox of the preface.David C. Makinson - 1965 - Analysis 25 (6):205-207.
``The Paradox of the Preface".D. C. Makinson - 1964 - Analysis 25 (6):205-207.
The lottery paradox, knowledge, and rationality.Dana K. Nelkin - 2000 - Philosophical Review 109 (3):373-409.
What Is So Bad About Contradictions?Graham Priest - 1998 - Journal of Philosophy 95 (8):410-426.

View all 18 references / Add more references