creators_name: Franceschi, Paul
type: preprint
datestamp: 2002-04-19
lastmod: 2011-03-11 08:54:55
metadata_visibility: show
title: A Dichotomic Analysis of the Surprise Examination Paradox
subjects: phil-epist
full_text_status: public
keywords: surprise examination paradox, surprise exam paradox
abstract: This paper presents a dichotomic analysis of the surprise examination paradox. In section 1, I analyse the surprise notion in detail. I introduce then in section 2, the distinction between a monist and dichotomic analysis of the paradox. I also present there a dichotomy leading to distinguish two basically and structurally different versions of the paradox, respectively based on a conjoint and a disjoint definition of the surprise. In section 3, I describe the solution to SEP corresponding to the conjoint definition. Lastly, I expose in section 4, the solution to SEP based on the disjoint definition.
date: 2002-04
date_type: published
refereed: FALSE
referencetext: AYER, A. J. 1973. On a Supposed Antinomy. Mind 82: 125-6.
BINKLEY, R. 1968. The Surprise Examination in Modal Logic. Journal of Philosophy 65: 127-36.
CHALMERS, D. 2002. The St. Petersburg two-envelope paradox. Analysis 62: 155-7 .
CHOW, T. Y. 1998. The Surprise Examination or Unexpected Hanging Paradox. The American Mathematical Monthly 105: 41-51.
DIETL, P. 1973. The Surprise Examination. Educational Theory 23: 153-8.
FRANCESCHI, P. 1999. Comment l'Urne de Carter et Leslie se Déverse dans celle de Hempel. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 29: 139-56. English translation under the title 'The Doomsday Argument and Hempel's Problem' at http://www.univ-corse.fr/~franceschi
HALL, N. 1999. How to Set a Surprise Exam. Mind 108: 647-703.
JANAWAY, C. 1989. Knowing About Surprises: A Supposed Antinomy Revisited. Mind 98: 391-410.
MONTAGUE, R. & KAPLAN, D. 1960. A Paradox Regained. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 3: 79-90.
O' CONNOR, D. 1948. Pragmatic paradoxes. Mind 57: 358-9.
QUINE, W. 1953. On a So-called Paradox. Mind 62: 65-6.
SCRIVEN, M. 1951. Paradoxical announcements. Mind 60: 403-7.
SHAW, R. 1958. The Paradox of the Unexpected Examination. Mind 67: 382-4.
SMITH, J. W. 1984.  The surprise examination on the paradox of the heap. Philosophical Papers 13: 43-56.
SOAMES, S. 1999. Understanding Truth. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SORENSEN, R. A. 1982. Recalcitrant versions of the prediction paradox. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69: 355-62.
SORENSEN, R. A. 1988. Blindspots. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
WRIGHT, C. & SUDBURY, A. 1977. The Paradox of the Unexpected Examination. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 55: 41-58.

citation:   Franceschi, Paul  (2002) A Dichotomic Analysis of the Surprise Examination Paradox.  [Preprint]     
document_url: http://cogprints.org/2184/3/%24sep-en.pdf