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)))


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!

"Gabe,I think that what Hick, as a philosopher, is doing is exploring the rational grounds ..."

How Atheists get it Wrong, According ..."
"I have noticed that religious folk, especially religious leaders and Theologians have tried to insist ..."

How Atheists get it Wrong, According ..."
"All religions and religionists are confounded by the two words: "Prove it!?"The third largest and ..."

How Atheists get it Wrong, According ..."
"It's a dead objection, the ought-is problem. It's only applicable when you're trying to directly ..."

Trump, Evangelicals, and the Single-Issue Voter

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment