Knowledge

Preface paradox

Source đź“ť

913: 903: 81:, a set of statements is inconsistent if it contains a contradiction. The paradox then arises from the contradiction of the author's belief that all of the statements in his book are correct (1) with his belief that at least one of them is not correct (2). To resolve the paradox, one can attack either the contradiction between statements (1) and (2), or the inconsistency of their conjunction. 55:
It is customary for authors of academic books to include in the preface of their books statements such as "any errors that remain are my sole responsibility." Occasionally they go further and actually claim there are errors in the books, with statements such as "the errors that are found herein are
84:
Probabilistic perspective may restate the statements in other terms, thus resolving the paradox by making them non-contradictory. Even if the author is 99% sure each single statement in his book is true (1), there can still be so many statements in the book that the aggregate probability of some of
65:
Thus, they have good reason, from (1), to rationally believe that each statement in their book is true, while at the same time they have good reason, from (2), to rationally believe that the book contains at least one error. Thus they can rationally believe that the book both does and does not
62:(2) However, they know, having learned from experience, that, despite their best efforts, there are very likely undetected errors in their book. So they also have good reason to believe that there is at least one assertion in their book that is not true. 59:(1) Such an author has written a book that contains many assertions, and has factually checked each one carefully, submitted it to reviewers for comment, etc. Thus, they have reason to believe that each assertion they have made is true. 100:, i.e., that belief (or rational belief) in various propositions entails a belief (or rational belief) in their conjunction. Most philosophers intuitively believe the principle to be true, but some (e.g., 97: 86: 96:
Another way to resolve the paradox is to reject the inconsistency of both (1) and (2) being true at the same time. This is done by rejecting the
349: 89:
allows the author to accept a very likely statement as true, he may rationally choose to believe in (1). Same principles may make him
32:, it presents an argument according to which it can be rational to accept mutually incompatible beliefs. While the preface paradox 497: 240: 558: 527: 364: 289: 783: 776: 208: 937: 600: 430: 552: 492: 547: 140: 620: 595: 435: 715: 843: 803: 680: 477: 395: 299: 294: 233: 720: 610: 116: 878: 863: 838: 833: 761: 705: 685: 590: 425: 319: 883: 868: 858: 823: 771: 700: 615: 487: 482: 405: 400: 329: 112: 101: 8: 645: 605: 569: 502: 369: 339: 334: 304: 269: 264: 916: 873: 853: 818: 793: 766: 564: 517: 507: 465: 460: 420: 415: 324: 284: 226: 37: 906: 888: 828: 808: 798: 725: 710: 630: 625: 455: 450: 410: 279: 848: 813: 788: 740: 665: 640: 635: 537: 512: 104:) intuitively believe it to be false. This is similar to Kyburg's solution to the 756: 735: 730: 690: 532: 522: 359: 354: 309: 105: 78: 75: 29: 695: 670: 660: 655: 585: 385: 274: 25: 931: 675: 542: 390: 472: 445: 440: 650: 90: 218: 85:
them being false (2) is very high as well. Since the principles of
197:, pp. 232-254. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983). 250: 207:
Priest, Graham; Tanaka, Koji; Weber, Zach (24 September 1996).
314: 115:
aims to accept some contradictory statements without
36:
a claim contrary to one's belief, it is opposite to
206: 929: 193:Kyburg, H. E., "Conjunctivitis", reprinted in 234: 902: 241: 227: 930: 154:, Philos. Sci., 53 (1986), pp. 246–258 69: 248: 222: 52:The argument runs along these lines: 165:A Note on the Paradox of the Preface 13: 559:What the Tortoise Said to Achilles 44:a claim contrary to one's belief. 14: 949: 912: 911: 901: 171:, vol. 28 (1978), pages 341-344 200: 187: 174: 157: 144: 139:, Analysis 25 (1965) 205-207. 129: 1: 182:The Preface Paradox Dissolved 122: 184:, Theoria, 53(2-3), 121-140. 66:contain at least one error. 7: 169:The Philosophical Quarterly 47: 10: 954: 195:Epistemology and Inference 180:Williams, John N..(1987). 152:The Paradox of the Preface 897: 749: 578: 378: 257: 28:in 1965. Similar to the 478:Paradoxes of set theory 209:"Paraconsistent Logic" 137:Paradox of the Preface 22:paradox of the preface 113:paraconsistent logics 98:conjunction principle 844:Kavka's toxin puzzle 616:Income and fertility 24:, was introduced by 938:Epistemic paradoxes 503:Temperature paradox 426:Free choice paradox 290:Fitch's knowability 87:rational acceptance 70:Attempted solutions 879:Prisoner's dilemma 565:Heat death paradox 553:Unexpected hanging 518:Chicken or the egg 91:rationally believe 925: 924: 596:Arrow information 135:Makinson, D. C., 945: 915: 914: 905: 904: 716:Service recovery 570:Olbers's paradox 270:Buridan's bridge 243: 236: 229: 220: 219: 213: 212: 204: 198: 191: 185: 178: 172: 161: 155: 148: 142: 133: 953: 952: 948: 947: 946: 944: 943: 942: 928: 927: 926: 921: 893: 804:Decision-making 750:Decision theory 745: 574: 498:Hilbert's Hotel 431:Grelling–Nelson 374: 253: 247: 217: 216: 205: 201: 192: 188: 179: 175: 162: 158: 149: 145: 134: 130: 125: 106:lottery paradox 79:deductive logic 72: 50: 38:Moore's paradox 30:lottery paradox 18:preface paradox 12: 11: 5: 951: 941: 940: 923: 922: 920: 919: 909: 898: 895: 894: 892: 891: 886: 881: 876: 871: 866: 861: 856: 851: 846: 841: 836: 831: 826: 821: 816: 811: 806: 801: 796: 791: 786: 781: 780: 779: 774: 769: 759: 753: 751: 747: 746: 744: 743: 738: 733: 728: 723: 721:St. Petersburg 718: 713: 708: 703: 698: 693: 688: 683: 678: 673: 668: 663: 658: 653: 648: 643: 638: 633: 628: 623: 618: 613: 608: 603: 598: 593: 588: 582: 580: 576: 575: 573: 572: 567: 562: 555: 550: 545: 540: 535: 530: 525: 520: 515: 510: 505: 500: 495: 490: 485: 480: 475: 470: 469: 468: 463: 458: 453: 448: 438: 433: 428: 423: 418: 413: 408: 403: 398: 393: 388: 382: 380: 376: 375: 373: 372: 367: 362: 357: 352: 350:Rule-following 347: 342: 337: 332: 327: 322: 317: 312: 307: 302: 297: 292: 287: 282: 277: 275:Dream argument 272: 267: 261: 259: 255: 254: 246: 245: 238: 231: 223: 215: 214: 199: 186: 173: 156: 150:Lacey, A. R., 143: 127: 126: 124: 121: 71: 68: 49: 46: 26:David Makinson 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 950: 939: 936: 935: 933: 918: 910: 908: 900: 899: 896: 890: 887: 885: 882: 880: 877: 875: 872: 870: 867: 865: 862: 860: 857: 855: 852: 850: 849:Morton's fork 847: 845: 842: 840: 837: 835: 832: 830: 827: 825: 822: 820: 817: 815: 812: 810: 807: 805: 802: 800: 797: 795: 792: 790: 789:Buridan's ass 787: 785: 782: 778: 775: 773: 770: 768: 765: 764: 763: 762:Apportionment 760: 758: 755: 754: 752: 748: 742: 739: 737: 734: 732: 729: 727: 724: 722: 719: 717: 714: 712: 709: 707: 704: 702: 699: 697: 694: 692: 689: 687: 684: 682: 679: 677: 674: 672: 669: 667: 664: 662: 659: 657: 654: 652: 649: 647: 644: 642: 639: 637: 634: 632: 629: 627: 624: 622: 621:Downs–Thomson 619: 617: 614: 612: 609: 607: 604: 602: 599: 597: 594: 592: 589: 587: 584: 583: 581: 577: 571: 568: 566: 563: 560: 556: 554: 551: 549: 546: 544: 541: 539: 538:Plato's beard 536: 534: 531: 529: 526: 524: 521: 519: 516: 514: 511: 509: 506: 504: 501: 499: 496: 494: 491: 489: 486: 484: 481: 479: 476: 474: 471: 467: 464: 462: 459: 457: 454: 452: 449: 447: 444: 443: 442: 439: 437: 436:Kleene–Rosser 434: 432: 429: 427: 424: 422: 419: 417: 414: 412: 409: 407: 404: 402: 399: 397: 394: 392: 389: 387: 384: 383: 381: 377: 371: 368: 366: 363: 361: 360:Theseus' ship 358: 356: 353: 351: 348: 346: 343: 341: 338: 336: 333: 331: 328: 326: 323: 321: 320:Mere addition 318: 316: 313: 311: 308: 306: 303: 301: 298: 296: 293: 291: 288: 286: 283: 281: 278: 276: 273: 271: 268: 266: 263: 262: 260: 258:Philosophical 256: 252: 244: 239: 237: 232: 230: 225: 224: 221: 210: 203: 196: 190: 183: 177: 170: 166: 160: 153: 147: 141: 138: 132: 128: 120: 118: 114: 109: 107: 103: 99: 94: 93:also in (2). 92: 88: 82: 80: 77: 67: 63: 60: 57: 56:mine alone." 53: 45: 43: 39: 35: 31: 27: 23: 19: 869:Preparedness 701:Productivity 681:Mandeville's 473:Opposite Day 401:Burali-Forti 396:Bhartrhari's 344: 202: 194: 189: 181: 176: 168: 164: 159: 151: 146: 136: 131: 110: 95: 83: 73: 64: 61: 58: 54: 51: 41: 33: 21: 17: 15: 799:Condorcet's 651:Giffen good 611:Competition 365:White horse 340:Omnipotence 874:Prevention 864:Parrondo's 854:Navigation 839:Inventor's 834:Hedgehog's 794:Chainstore 777:Population 772:New states 706:Prosperity 686:Mayfield's 528:Entailment 508:Barbershop 421:Epimenides 123:References 889:Willpower 884:Tolerance 859:Newcomb's 824:Fredkin's 711:Scitovsky 631:Edgeworth 626:Easterlin 591:Antitrust 488:Russell's 483:Richard's 456:Pinocchio 411:Crocodile 330:Newcomb's 300:Goodman's 295:Free will 280:Epicurean 251:paradoxes 163:New, C., 117:exploding 111:Finally, 76:classical 34:nullifies 20:, or the 932:Category 917:Category 814:Ellsberg 666:Leontief 646:Gibson's 641:European 636:Ellsberg 606:Braess's 601:Bertrand 579:Economic 513:Catch-22 493:Socratic 335:Nihilism 305:Hedonism 265:Analysis 249:Notable 48:Overview 819:Fenno's 784:Arrow's 767:Alabama 757:Abilene 736:Tullock 691:Metzler 533:Lottery 523:Drinker 466:Yablo's 461:Quine's 416:Curry's 379:Logical 355:Sorites 345:Preface 325:Moore's 310:Liberal 285:Fiction 42:asserts 726:Thrift 696:Plenty 671:Lerner 661:Jevons 656:Icarus 586:Allais 548:Ross's 386:Barber 370:Zeno's 315:Meno's 102:Kyburg 40:which 829:Green 809:Downs 741:Value 676:Lucas 543:Raven 451:No-no 406:Court 391:Berry 907:List 731:Toil 446:Card 441:Liar 16:The 74:In 934:: 167:, 119:. 108:. 561:" 557:" 242:e 235:t 228:v 211:.

Index

David Makinson
lottery paradox
Moore's paradox
classical
deductive logic
rational acceptance
rationally believe
conjunction principle
Kyburg
lottery paradox
paraconsistent logics
exploding

"Paraconsistent Logic"
v
t
e
paradoxes
Analysis
Buridan's bridge
Dream argument
Epicurean
Fiction
Fitch's knowability
Free will
Goodman's
Hedonism
Liberal
Meno's
Mere addition

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑