Skip to main content
×
×
Home

CAN THE LOTTERY PARADOX BE SOLVED BY IDENTIFYING EPISTEMIC JUSTIFICATION WITH EPISTEMIC PERMISSIBILITY?

  • Benjamin Kiesewetter
Abstract

Thomas Kroedel argues that the lottery paradox can be solved by identifying epistemic justification with epistemic permissibility rather than epistemic obligation. According to his permissibility solution, we are permitted to believe of each lottery ticket that it will lose, but since permissions do not agglomerate, it does not follow that we are permitted to have all of these beliefs together, and therefore it also does not follow that we are permitted to believe that all tickets will lose. I present two objections to this solution. First, even if justification itself amounts to no more than epistemic permissibility, the lottery paradox recurs at the level of doxastic obligations unless one adopts an extremely permissive view about suspension of belief that is in tension with our practice of doxastic criticism. Second, even if there are no obligations to believe lottery propositions, the permissibility solution fails because epistemic permissions typically agglomerate, and the lottery case provides no exception to this rule.

Copyright
Corresponding author
benjamin.kiesewetter[at]hu-berlin.de
References
Hide All
Bedke, M. S. 2017. ‘Ends to Means.’ Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 12: 628.
Chuard, P. and Southwood, N. 2009. ‘Epistemic Norms without Voluntary Control.’ Noûs, 43: 599632.
Eder, A.-M. A. 2015. ‘No Match Point for the Permissibility Account.’ Erkenntnis, 80: 657–73.
Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. 2002. ‘Evidence, Pragmatics, and Justification.’ Philosophical Review, 111: 6794.
Foley, R. 1979. ‘Justified Inconsistent Beliefs.’ American Philosophical Quarterly, 16: 247–57.
Foley, R. 1987. The Theory of Epistemic Rationality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Foley, R. 1992. ‘The Epistemology of Belief and the Epistemology of Degrees of Belief.’ American Philosophical Quarterly, 29: 111–24.
Gertken, J. and Kiesewetter, B. 2017. ‘The Right and the Wrong Kind of Reasons.’ Philosophy Compass, 12: 114. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12412.
Gertken, J. and Kiesewetter, B. Ms. ‘Is There a Liberal Principle of Instrumental Transmission?’ Unpublished manuscript, Humboldt University of Berlin, March 2018.
Gibbard, A. 1990. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings. A Theory of Normative Judgment. Oxford: Clarendon Paperbacks (repr. 2002).
Harman, G. 1986. Change in View. Principles of Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Heylen, J. 2016. ‘Being in a Position to Know and Closure.’ Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 5: 63–7.
Huber, F. 2014. ‘What is the Permissibility Solution a Solution of? A Question for Kroedel.Logos & Episteme, 5: 333–42.
Kelly, T. 2002. ‘The Rationality of Belief and Some Other Propositional Attitudes.’ Philosophical Studies, 110: 163–96.
Kiesewetter, B. 2015. ‘Instrumental Normativity: In Defense of the Transmission Principle.’ Ethics, 125: 921–46.
Kiesewetter, B. 2017. The Normativity of Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klein, P. 1985. ‘The Virtues of Inconsistency.’ The Monist, 68: 105–35.
Kolodny, N. 2005. ‘Why Be Rational?Mind, 114: 509–63.
Kolodny, N. Forthcoming. ‘Instrumental Reasons.’ In Star, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kroedel, T. 2012. ‘The Lottery Paradox, Epistemic Justification and Permissibility.’ Analysis, 72: 5760.
Kroedel, T. 2013a. ‘The Permissibility Solution to the Lottery Paradox – Reply to Littlejohn.Logos & Episteme, 4: 103–11.
Kroedel, T. 2013b. ‘Why Epistemic Permissions Don't Agglomerate – Another Reply to Littlejohn.Logos & Episteme, 4: 451–5.
Kroedel, T. 2017. ‘The Lottery, the Preface, and Conditions on Permissible Belief.Erkenntnis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-017-9911-5.
Kyburg, H. E. 1961. Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Kyburg, H. E. 1970. ‘Conjunctivitis.’ In Swain, M. (ed.), Induction, Acceptance and Rational Belief, pp. 5582. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Littlejohn, C. 2012. ‘Lotteries, Probabilities, and Permissions.Logos & Episteme, 3: 509–14.
Littlejohn, C. 2013. ‘Don't Know, Don't Believe: Reply to Kroedel.Logos & Episteme, 4: 231–8.
Makinson, D. C. 1965. ‘The Paradox of the Preface.’ Analysis, 25: 205–7.
Moran, R. 1988. ‘Making Up Your Mind.’ Ratio, 1: 135–51.
Nelkin, D. K. 2000. ‘The Lottery Paradox, Knowledge, and Rationality.’ Philosophical Review, 109: 373409.
Nelson, M. T. 2010. ‘We Have No Positive Epistemic Duties.’ Mind, 119: 83102.
Nozick, R. 1993. The Nature of Rationality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (repr. 1995).
Parfit, D. 2001. ‘Rationality and Reasons.’ In Egonsson, D., Josefsson, J., Petersson, B. and Rønnow-Rasmussen, T. (eds), Exploring Practical Philosophy: From Action to Values, pp. 1739. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Parfit, D. 2011. On What Matters. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piller, C. 2006. ‘Content-Related and Attitude-Related Reasons for Preferences.’ Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 81: 155–81.
Rinard, S. 2015. ‘Against the New Evidentialists.’ Philosophical Issues, 25: 208–23.
Rinard, S. 2017. ‘No Exception for Belief.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 94: 121–43.
Rosenkranz, S. 2016. ‘Being in a Position to Know and Closure: Reply to Heylen.’ Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 5: 6872.
Rosenkranz, S. 2017. ‘The Structure of Justification.Mind. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzw057.
Ryan, S. 1996. ‘The Epistemic Virtues of Consistency.’ Synthese, 109: 121–41.
Schroeder, M. 2012. ‘The Ubiquity of State-Given Reasons.’ Ethics, 122: 457–88.
Shah, N. 2006. ‘A New Argument for Evidentialism.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 56: 481–98.
Shah, N. and Silverstein, M. 2013. ‘Reasoning in Stages.’ Ethics, 124: 101–13.
Skorupski, J. 2007. ‘Buck-Passing about Goodness.’ In Rønnow-Rasmussen, T., Petersson, B., Josefsson, J. and Egonsson, D. (eds), Hommage à Wlodek: Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz, pp. 115. http://www.fil.lu.se/hommageawlodek/site/papper/SkorupskiJohn.pdf.
Skorupski, J. 2010. The Domain of Reasons. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Way, J. 2010. ‘Defending the Wide-Scope Approach to Instrumental Reason.’ Philosophical Studies, 147: 213–33.
Way, J. 2012. ‘Transmission and the Wrong Kind of Reason.’ Ethics, 122: 489515.
Way, J. 2016. ‘Two Arguments for Evidentialism.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 66: 805–18.
Way, J. and Whiting, D.. 2016. ‘Reasons and Guidance (Or, Surprise Parties and Ice Cream).’ Analytic Philosophy, 57: 214–35.
Whiting, D. 2012. ‘Does Belief Aim (Only) at the Truth?Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 93: 279300.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Episteme
  • ISSN: 1742-3600
  • EISSN: 1750-0117
  • URL: /core/journals/episteme
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 51
Total number of PDF views: 32 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 189 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 25th March 2018 - 18th August 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.