Cogprints
Login | Create Account

A Third Route to the Doomsday Argument

Franceschi, Paul (2005) A Third Route to the Doomsday Argument. [Preprint]

This is the latest version of this eprint.

Full text available as:

[img]
Preview
PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
215Kb

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 ancestors models, which renders them less vulnerable to several objections. I describe then 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 consensual than the original one.

Item Type:Preprint
Keywords:Doomsday argument, two-urn case, emerald case, thought experiement, probability theory
Subjects:Philosophy > Logic
Philosophy > Epistemology
ID Code:4519
Deposited By:Franceschi, Paul
Deposited On:24 Aug 2005
Last Modified:12 Sep 2007 18:00

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, N. (1997) ‘Investigations into the Doomsday argument’, preprint at http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/inv/investigations.html

Bostrom, N. (2002) Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy, New York, Routledge

Chambers, T. (2001) ‘Do Doomsday's Proponents Think We Were Born Yesterday?’, Philosophy, 76, 443-50

Delahaye, J-P. (1996) ‘Recherche de modèles pour l’argument de l’apocalypse de Carter-Leslie’, unpublished manuscript

Eckhardt, W. (1993) ‘Probability Theory and the Doomsday Argument’, Mind, 102, 483-88

Eckhardt, W. (1997) ‘A Shooting-Room view of Doomsday’, Journal of Philosophy, 94, 244-259

Franceschi, P. (1998) ‘Une solution pour l'argument de l'apocalypse’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 28, 227-46

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’, PhilSci: 601

Franceschi, P. (2002) Une application des n-univers à l'argument de l'Apocalypse et au paradoxe de Goodman, Corté: University of Corsica, doctoral dissertation, published at Manuscrit-Université, Paris, 2004

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

Korb, K. & Oliver, J. (1998) ‘A Refutation of the Doomsday Argument’, Mind, 107, 403-10

Leslie, J. (1992) ‘Time and the Anthropic Principle’, Mind, 101, 521-40

Leslie, J. (1993) ‘Doom and Probabilities’, Mind, 102, 489-91

Leslie, J. (1996) The End of the World: the science and ethics of human extinction, London, Routledge

Sober, E. (2003) ‘An Empirical Critique of Two Versions of the Doomsday Argument - Gott’s Line and Leslie’s Wedge’, Synthese, 135-3, 415-30

Sowers, G. F. (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.