Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On paradoxes and a surprise exam

  • Series: On “Error”
  • Published:
Philosophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Bibliography

  • Ayer, A.J. (1973) “On a Supposed Antnomy”,Mind 82: 125–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binkley R. (1968) “The Surprise Examination in Modal Logic”,Journal of Philosophy 65: 127–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunch, B. (1982)Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes New York: Van Nostrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cargile, J. (1979)Paradoxes Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, J.M. & Butler, R.J. (1965) “On Quine's “So-Called Paradox'”.Mind 74: 424–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherniak, C. (1986)Minimal Rationality Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chihara, C.S. (1985) “Olin, Quine, and the Surprise Examination”,Philosophical Studies 47: 19–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guiasu, S. (1987) “Prediction Paradox Revisited”,Logique et Analyse 30: 147–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, J.Y & Moses Y. (1986) “Taken By Surprise: The Paradox of the Surprise Test Revisited”,Journal of Philosophical Logic 15: 281–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtzman, J.M. (1987) “An Undecidable Aspect of the Unexpected Hanging Problem”,Philosophia 17: 195–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, P. & G. Brecht (1975)Vicious Circles and Infinity: An Anthology of Paradoxes Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkham, R.L. (1986). “The Two Paradoxes of the Unexpected Examination”,Philosophical Studies 49: 19–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvart, I. (1978) “The Paradox of Surprise Examination”,Logique et Analyse 21: 337–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, A. (1959) “The Prediction Paradox”,Mind 68: 510–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margalit A. & M. Bar-Hillel (1983) “Expecting the Unexpected”,Philosophia 13: 263–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLelland, J. (1971) “Epistemic Logic and the Paradox of the Surprise Examination”,International Logic Review 3: 69–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLelland J. and C. Chihara (1975) “The Surprise Examination Paradox”,Journal of Philosophical Logic 4: 71–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medlin, B. (1964) “The Unexpected Examination”,American Philosophical Quarterly 1: 66–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Carroll, M.J. (1967) “Improper Self-Reference in Classical Logic and the Prediction Paradox”,Logique et Analyse 10: 167–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Conner, D.J. (1948) “Pragmatic Paradoxes”,Mind 57: 358–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olin, D. (1982) “The Prediction Paradox Resolved”,Philosophical Studies 44: 225–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1986) “The Prediction Paradox: Resolving Recalcitrant Variations”,Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64: 181–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — (1988) “Predictions, Intentions and the Prisoner's Dilemma”,Philosophical Quarterly 38: 111–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. O. (1962) “The Ways of Paradox”, in Quine's (1976)The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays Rev. Ed., Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. (1908) “Mathematical Logic as Based on a theory of Types”, in Russell's (1956)Logic and Knowledge New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 59–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sainsbury, R.M. (1988)Paradoxes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenberg, J. (1966) “A Note on the Logical Fallacy in the Paradox of the Unexpected Examination”,Mind 75: 125–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. (1951) “Paradoxical Announcements”,Mind 60: 403–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, R.A. (1965) “The Unexpected Examination”,Mind 74: 255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, R. (1958) “The Unexpected Examination”,Mind 67: 382–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J.W. (1984) “The Surprise Examination and the Paradox of the Heap”,Philosophical Papers 13: 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, R.A. (1982) “Recalcitrant Variations of the Prediction Paradox”,Australasian Journal of Philosphy 60: 355–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1983) “Conditional Bindspots and the Knowledge Squeeze: A Solution to the Prediction Paradox”,Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62: 126–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1986a) “The Bottle Imp and the Prediction Paradox”,Philosophia 15: 421–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — (1986b) “A Strengthened Prediction Paradox”,Philosophical Quarterly 36: 504–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1986c) “Blindspotting and Choice Variations of the Prediction Paradox”,American Philosophical Quarterly 36: 337–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1987) “The Bottle Imp and the Predictin Paradox, II”,Philosophia 17: 351–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1988)Blindspots Oxford: Clarendon. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wreem, M.J. (1983) “Surprising, the Examiner”,Logique et Analyse 26: 177–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1986) “Passing the Bottle”,Philosophia 15: 427–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, C. & A. Sudbury (1977) “The Paradox of the Unexpected Examination”,Australasian Journal of Philosophy 55:41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J.A., (1967) “The Surprise Exam: Prediction on the Last Day Uncertain”,Mind 76: 115–117.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oklahoma, 73019, Norman, Oklahoma, USA

    Richard L. Kirkham

Authors
  1. Richard L. Kirkham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kirkham, R.L. On paradoxes and a surprise exam. Philosophia 21, 31–51 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381968

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381968

Search

Navigation