Lotteries, Knowledge, and Irrelevant Alternatives
The lottery paradox plays an important role in arguments for various norms of assertion. Why is it that, prior to information on the results of a draw, assertions such as, “My ticket lost,” seem inappropriate? This paper is composed of two projects. First, I articulate a number of problems arising from Timothy Williamson’s analysis of the lottery paradox. Second, I propose a relevant alternatives theory, which I call the Non-Destabilizing Alternatives Theory (NDAT), that better explains the pathology of asserting lottery propositions, while permitting assertions of what I call fallible propositions such as, “My car is in the driveway.”
2007 ◽
Vol 23
(3)
◽
pp. 301-319
◽
Keyword(s):
2008 ◽
Vol 89
(2)
◽
pp. 204-225
◽