Cogprints

A Dichotomic Analysis of the Surprise Examination Paradox

Franceschi, Paul (2002) A Dichotomic Analysis of the Surprise Examination Paradox. [Preprint]

Full text available as:

[img]PDF
192Kb

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.

Item Type:Preprint
Keywords:surprise examination paradox, surprise exam paradox
Subjects:Philosophy > Epistemology
ID Code:2184
Deposited By:Franceschi, Paul
Deposited On:19 Apr 2002
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:54

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.

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.

Metadata

Repository Staff Only: item control page