, Volume 194, Issue 4, pp 1233–1244 | Cite as

Lotteries and justification

  • Christoph KelpEmail author
Original Paper


The lottery paradox shows that the following three individually highly plausible theses are jointly incompatible: (i) highly probable propositions are justifiably believable, (ii) justified believability is closed under conjunction introduction, (iii) known contradictions are not justifiably believable. This paper argues that a satisfactory solution to the lottery paradox must reject (i) as versions of the paradox can be generated without appeal to either (ii) or (iii) and proposes a new solution to the paradox in terms of a novel account of justified believability.


Epistemology Virtue epistemology Knowledge first epistemology Lottery Paradox Justified belief 



Thanks to the audiences of the following conferences for helpful feedback on the material of this paper: 2012 EEN Meeting, Universities of Bologna and Modena (2012); CCPEA, Academia Sinica, Taipei (2012); 2013 Bled Philosophical Conferences, Bled (2013); Epistemic Justification and Reasons, University of Luxembourg (2013); Neue Perspektiven der Epistemischen Rechtfertigung, University of Dresden (2013), Saving Safety, Bonn (2013), Yonsei Philosophy Summer Conference, Yonsei University (2014); Normative Epistemic Reasons, University of Luxembourg (2014), The Virtue Turn, University of Taipei (2014); 2015 Bled Philosophical Conferences, Bled (2015). Thanks also to the Leuven Epistemology Group and two anonymous referees of this journal for their feedback on the paper. Special thanks to Harmen Ghijsen and Mona Simionescu for commenting on various versions of the paper. This work was funded by grants from KU Leuven’s Special Research Fund (BOF) and Research Foundation Flanders (FWO).


  1. Bird, A. (2007). Justified judging. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74, 81–110.Google Scholar
  2. Douven, I. (2002). A new solution to the paradoxes of rational acceptability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 53, 391–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Douven, I., & Williamson, T. (2006). Generalising the lottery paradox. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57, 755–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Foley, R. (1979). Justified inconsistent beliefs. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16, 247–257.Google Scholar
  5. Greco, J. (2010). Achieving knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jenkins Ichikawa, J. (2014). Justification is potential knowledge. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 44, 184–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaplan, M. (1981). A Bayesian theory of rational acceptance. The Journal of Philosophy, 78, 305–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kelp, C. (2014a). Two for the knowledge goal of inquiry. American Philosophical Quarterly, 51, 227–232.Google Scholar
  9. Kelp, C. (2014b). No justification for lottery losers. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 95, 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kelp, C. (2014c). Knowledge, understanding, and virtue. In A. Fairweather (Ed.), Virtue scientia. Virtue epistemology and philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Kelp, C. (forthcoming a). Knowledge first virtue epistemology. In A. Carter, E. Gordon, & B. Jarvis (Eds.), Knowledge first: Approaches in epistemology and mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kelp, C. (forthcoming b). Justified belief: Knowledge first-style. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
  13. Kelp, C., & Ghijsen, H. (forthcoming). Perceptual justification: Factive reasons and fallible virtues. In C. Mi, M. Slote, & E. Sosa (Eds.), Moral and intellectual virtues in Western and Chinese philosophy. London: Routlege.Google Scholar
  14. Kyburg, H. (1961). Probability and the logic of rational belief. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kyburg, H. (1970). Conjunctivitis. In M. Swain (Ed.), Induction, acceptance and rational belief. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  16. Kyburg, H. (1997). Probabilistic acceptance. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI’97, pp. 326–333.Google Scholar
  17. Littlejohn, C. (2013). The Russellian retreat. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 113, 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Millar, A. (2010). Perceptual knowledge and recognitional abilities. In D. Pritchard, A. Millar, & A. Haddock (Eds.), The nature and value of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Millikan, R. (2000). On clear and confused ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miracchi, L. (2015). Competence to know. Philosophical Studies, 172, 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pollock, J. (1995). Cognitive carpentry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ramsey, F. (1990/1929). F.P. Ramsey: Philosophical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Reynolds, S. (2013). Justification as the appearance of knowledge. Philosophical Studies, 163, 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ryan, S. (1996). The epistemic virtues of consistency. Synthese, 109, 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, M. (2014). Knowledge, justification and normative coincidence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89, 273–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smithies, D. (2012). The normative role of knowledge. Noûs, 46, 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sosa, E. (2010). How competence matters in epistemology. Philosophical Perspectives, 24, 465–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sutton, J. (2007). Without justification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Williamson, T. (forthcoming). Justifications, excuses, and sceptical scenarios. In J. Dutant & F. Dorsch (Eds.), The new evil demon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Logic and Analytic Philosophy, Institute of PhilosophyKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations