LINK: Dave Harker on A Surprise for Horwich (and Some Advocates of the Fine-Tuning Argument (which does not include Horwich (as far as I know)))

Abstract

The judgment that a given event is epistemically improbable is necessary but insufficient for us to conclude that the event is surprising. Paul Horwich has argued that surprising events are, in addition, more probable given alternative background assumptions that are not themselves extremely improbable. I argue that Horwich’s definition fails to capture important features of surprises and offer an alternative definition that accords better with intuition. An important application of Horwich’s analysis has arisen in discussions of fine-tuning arguments. In the second part of the paper I consider the implications for this argument of employing my definition of surprise. I argue that advocates of fine-tuning arguments are not justified in attaching significance to the fact that we are surprised by examples of fine-tuning.

A preprint of this paper is available on Harker’s website, at least for now, here. Since this has been accepted for publication, free access to the article may go away soon, so download it now if you’re interested!

"I agree that this "extrapolate to infinity" is very presumptuous, but nevertheless it is what ..."

A moral argument against the resurrection
""John Searle says that 'subjective' has an ontological sense and an epistemological sense""In an ontological ..."

Can humans create meaning? Can God?
"Can Parfit have his object/​state-given reasons without something like teleology? Indeed, the way Jason is ..."

Can humans create meaning? Can God?
""The rejection of theism does NOT imply the rejection of belief in an afterlife."Excellent point. ..."

ATHEISM 101

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment