Cogprints

A Third Route to the Doomsday Argument

Franceschi, Paul (2010) A Third Route to the Doomsday Argument. [Journal (On-line/Unpaginated)]

This is the latest version of this eprint.

Full text available as:

[img]
Preview
 PDF - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.
159Kb

Abstract

In this paper, I present a solution to the Doomsday argument based on a third type of solution, by contrast to, on the one hand, the Carter-Leslie view and, on the other hand, the Eckhardt et al. analysis. I begin by strengthening both competing models by highlighting some variations of their original models, which renders them less vulnerable to several objections. I then describe a third line of solution, which incorporates insights from both Leslie and Eckhardt's models and fits more adequately with the human situation corresponding to DA. I argue then that this two-sided analogy casts new light on the reference class problem. This leads finally to a novel formulation of the argument that could well be more plausible than the original one.

Item Type:Journal (On-line/Unpaginated)
Keywords:Doomsday argument, two-urn case, emerald case, thought experiment, probability theory
Subjects:Philosophy > Logic
Philosophy > Epistemology
ID Code:7044
Deposited By: Franceschi, Paul
Deposited On:18 Oct 2010 11:04
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:57

Available Versions of this Item

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Bostrom, Nick. 1997. “Investigations into the Doomsday argument.” preprint at http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/inv/investigations.html.

———. 2002. Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy New York: Routledge.

Chambers, Timothy. 2001. “Do Doomsday's Proponents Think We Were Born Yesterday?” Philosophy 76: 443-450.

Delahaye, Jean-Paul. 1996. “Recherche de modèles pour l’argument de l’apocalypse de Carter-Leslie.” manuscrit.

Eckhardt, William. 1993. “Probability Theory and the Doomsday Argument.” Mind 102: 483-488.

———. 1997. “A Shooting-Room view of Doomsday.” Journal of Philosophy 94: 244-259.

Franceschi, Paul. 1998. “Une solution pour l'argument de l'Apocalypse.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 28: 227-246.

———. 1999. “Comment l'urne de Carter et Leslie se déverse dans celle de Hempel.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 29: 139-156, English translation under the title “The Doomsday Argument and Hempel's Problem.” http://cogprints.org/2172/.

———. 2002. “Une application des n-univers à l'argument de l'Apocalypse et au paradoxe de Goodman.” Corté: University of Corsica, doctoral dissertation.

Hájek, Alan. 2002. “Interpretations of Probability.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2002/entries/probability-interpret.

Korb, Kevin. & Oliver, Jonathan. 1998. “A Refutation of the Doomsday Argument.” Mind 107: 403-410.

Leslie, John. 1993. “Doom and Probabilities.” Mind 102: 489-491.

———. 1996. The End of the World: the science and ethics of human extinction London: Routledge.

Sober, Eliott. 2003. “An Empirical Critique of Two Versions of the Doomsday Argument - Gott’s Line and Leslie’s Wedge.” Synthese 135-3: 415-430.

Sowers, George. 2002. “The Demise of the Doomsday Argument.” Mind 111: 37-45.

Metadata

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Cogprints is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.