Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Wikipedia on Epistemology




----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Whatcott" <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>
To: <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:35 PM
Subject: [Phys-l] Wikipedia on Epistemology


Here's a sample paragraph on the Lottery Paradox from
Wikipedia's article on Epistemology.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology>

"If the paradox had to be put in a few premises, as it was in
Peter Klein's Certainty, it would look like this:
"Premise 1: There's probabilistic evidence that one is justified
in believing that ticket 1 will lose, and justified in believing
ticket 2 will lose ... and justified in believing ticket n will lose.

Which is legitimate. Each statement represents an (n-1/n) probability.

Premise 2: If one is justified in believing that ticket 1 will lose,
and justified in believing ticket 2 will lose ... and justified in
believing ticket n will lose, then one is justified in believing
that ticket 1, and ticket 2 ... and ticket n will lose..

Which is not legitimate. While each individual statement represents an (n-1/n) probability, taking all of them as a single premise reduces the probability to zero - They can't all lose. This premise is clearly wrong.

Premise 3: There's probabilistic evidence that one is not
justified in believing that ticket 1, and ticket 2 ... and
ticket n will lose.

Legitimate. The probability here is zero.

-------
Conclusion: Therefore, one is justified in believing that
ticket 1, and ticket 2 ... and ticket n will lose

No; faulty premise.

and not justified in believing that ticket 1, and ticket 2
... and ticket n will lose. "

This one is fine.

Doesn't a paradox require true statements?