Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 194, Issue 8, pp 3101–3133 | Cite as

How to expect a surprising exam

  • Brian KimEmail author
  • Anubav Vasudevan
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we provide a Bayesian analysis of the well-known surprise exam paradox. Central to our analysis is a probabilistic account of what it means for the student to accept the teacher’s announcement that he will receive a surprise exam. According to this account, the student can be said to have accepted the teacher’s announcement provided he adopts a subjective probability distribution relative to which he expects to receive the exam on a day on which he expects not to receive it. We show that as long as expectation is not equated with subjective certainty there will be contexts in which it is possible for the student to accept the teacher’s announcement, in this sense. In addition, we show how a Bayesian modeling of the scenario can yield plausible explanations of the following three intuitive claims: (1) the teacher’s announcement becomes easier to accept the more days there are in class; (2) a strict interpretation of the teacher’s announcement does not provide the student with any categorical information as to the date of the exam; and (3) the teacher’s announcement contains less information about the date of the exam the more days there are in class. To conclude, we show how the surprise exam paradox can be seen as one among the larger class of paradoxes of doxastic fallibilism, foremost among which is the paradox of the preface.

Keywords

Surprise exam paradox Probability Fallibilism Preface paradox Bayesianism 

References

  1. Arló-Costa, H., & Pedersen, A. P. (2012). Belief and probability: A general theory of probability cores. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 53(3), 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borwein, D., Borwein, J. M., & Marechal, P. (2000). Surprise maximization. The American Mathematical Monthly, 107(6), 517–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chow, T. Y. (1998). The surprise examination or unexpected hanging paradox. American Mathematical Monthly, 105, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, D. (1994a). How expected is the unexpected hanging? Mathematics Magazine, 67(1), 55–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, R. (1994b). Pragmatic paradox and rationality. Canadian journal of philosophy, 24(2), 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Foley, R. (1993). Working without a Net. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gärdenfors, P. (1994). The role of expectations in reasoning. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hall, N. (1999). How to set a surprise exam. Mind, 108(432), 647–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kennedy, C. (2007). Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(1), 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kim, B. (2015). This paper surely contains some errors. Philosophical Studies, 172(4), 1013–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Klein, P. (1985). The virtues of inconsistency. The Monist, 68(1), 105–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kripke, S. (2011). On two paradoxes of knowledge. In Philosophical troubles: Collected papers (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kyburg, J. H. E. (1997). The rule of adjunction and reasonable inference. Journal of Philosophy, 94(3), 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levi, I. (1980). The enterprise of knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Makinson, D. C. (1965). The paradox of the preface. Analysis, 25, 205–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Margalit, A., & Bar-Hilel, M. (1983). Expecting the Unexpected. Philosophia, 13(3–4), 263–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Connor, D. J. (1948). Pragmatic paradoxes. Mind, 57(227), 358–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Quine, W. V. (1953). On a so-called paradox. Mind, 62(245), 65–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schumacher, B., & Westmoreland, M. (2008). Reverand Bayes takes the unexpected examination. Math Horizons, 16(1), 26–27.Google Scholar
  20. Scriven, M. (1951). Paradoxical announcements. Mind, 60(239), 403–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sober, E. (1998). To give a surprise exam, use game theory. Synthese, 115(3), 355–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sorensen, R. A. (1988). Blindspots. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Spohn, W. (2012). The laws of belief: Ranking Theory and its philosophical applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thalos, M. (1997). Conflict and co-ordination in the aftermath of oracular statements. The Philosophical Quarterly, 47(187), 212–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wright, C., & Sudbury, A. (1977). The paradox of the unexpected examination. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 55, 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations