-
956The two-envelope paradoxMind 109 (435): 415--442. 2000.Previous claims to have resolved the two-envelope paradox have been premature. The paradoxical argument has been exposed as manifestly fallacious if there is an upper limit to the amount of money that may be put in an envelope; but the paradoxical cases which can be described if this limitation is removed do not involve mathematical error, nor can they be explained away in terms of the strangeness of infinity. Only by taking account of the partial sums of the infinite series of expected gains ca…Read more
-
947Decision theory, symmetry and causal structure: Reply to Meacham and WeisbergMind 112 (448): 691-701. 2003.1Department of Philosophy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK. [email protected] of Philosophy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK. [email protected].
-
727The Dr. Psycho Paradox and Newcomb’s ProblemErkenntnis 64 (1). 2006.Nicholas Rescher claims that rational decision theory “may leave us in the lurch”, because there are two apparently acceptable ways of applying “the standard machinery of expected-value analysis” to his Dr. Psycho paradox which recommend contradictory actions. He detects a similar contradiction in Newcomb’s problem. We consider his claims from the point of view of both Bayesian decision theory and causal decision theory. In Dr. Psycho and in Newcomb’s Problem, Rescher has used premisses about pr…Read more
-
201Humour and IncongruityPhilosophy 45 (171). 1970.The question “What is humour?” has exercised in varying degrees such philosophers as Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer and Bergson and has traditionally been regarded as a philosophical question. And surely it must still be regarded as a philosophical question at least in so far as it is treated as a conceptual one. Traditionally the question has been regarded as a search for the essence of humour, whereas nowadays it has become almost a reflex response among some philosophers to dismi…Read more
-
188Paradoxes 1: The Ship of Theseus: Clark ParadoxesThink 1 (1): 75-76. 2002.In this regular series Michael Clark, editor of the philosophy journal Analysis, presents a number of the most intriguing philosophical paradoxes. We begin with The Ship of Theseus.
-
92Paradox 8: The paradox of the gods: Clark paradoxesThink 3 (8): 107-108. 2004.In this regular series Michael Clark, editor of the journal Analysis, presents a number of the most intriguing philosophical paradoxes. Here we examine the paradox of the gods.
-
90Paradox 7: The unexpected examination: Clark ParadoxesThink 3 (7): 109-111. 2004.In this regular series Michael Clark, editor of the journal Analysis, presents a number of the most intriguing philosophical paradoxes. Here we examine the paradox of the unexpected examination.
-
83Paradoxes 4: the paradox of democracy: Clark ParadoxesThink 2 (4): 89-90. 2003.In this regular series, Michael Clark, editor of Analysis, presents some of the most intriguing philosophical paradoxes. Here we examine the paradox of democracy.
-
83Paradoxes From a to ZRoutledge. 2002._Paradoxes from A to Z, Third edition_ is the essential guide to paradoxes, and takes the reader on a lively tour of puzzles that have taxed thinkers from Zeno to Galileo, and Lewis Carroll to Bertrand Russell. Michael Clark uncovers an array of conundrums, such as Achilles and the Tortoise, Theseus’ Ship, and the Prisoner’s Dilemma, taking in subjects as diverse as knowledge, science, art and politics. Clark discusses each paradox in non-technical terms, considering its significance and looking…Read more
-
81Discourse about the futureIn G. Vesey (ed.), Knowledge and Necessity, Macmillan. pp. 169-190. 1970.
-
77Paradoxes 6: The Paradox of inference: Clark ParadoxesThink 2 (6): 63-65. 2004.In this regular series Michael Clark, editor of the journal Analysis, presents a number of the most intriguing philosophical paradoxes. Here we examine the paradox of inference.
-
76Humour, laughter and the structure of thoughtBritish Journal of Aesthetics 27 (3): 238-246. 1987.
-
76Paradoxes 5: Bertrand's box Paradox: Clark PardoxesThink 2 (5): 73-74. 2003.In this regular series Michael Clark, editor of the journal Analysis, presents a number of the most intriguing philosophical paradaoxes. Here we examine the paradox of Bertrand's box.
-
70Paradoxes 2: Achilles and the Tortoise: Clark ParadoxesThink 1 (2): 95-98. 2002.In this regular series Michael Clark, editor of the journal Analysis, presents some of the most intriguing philosophical paradoxes. Here we examine the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise.
-
69Paradox 9: Heraclitus' paradox: Clark ParadoxesThink 3 (9): 59-62. 2005.In this regular series Michael Clark, editor of the journal Analysis, presents a number of he most intriguing philosophical paradoxes.
-
58Paradoxes from A to ZRoutledge. 2002.This essential guide to paradoxes takes the reader on a lively tour of puzzles that have taxed thinkers from Zeno to Galileo and Lewis Carroll to Bertrand Russell. Michael Clark uncovers an array of conundrums, such as Achilles and the Tortoise, Theseus' Ship, Hempel's Raven, and the Prisoners' Dilemma, taking in subjects as diverse as knowledge, ethics, science, art and politics. Clark discusses each paradox in non-technical terms, considering its significance and looking at likely solutions.
-
48The place of syllogistic in logical theoryNottingham University Press. 1980.Chapter 1 presents BS, a basic syllogistic system based on Aristotle's logic, in natural deduction form. Chapters 2 and 3 treat the metatheory of BS: consitency, soundness, independence, and completeness. Chapter 4 and 5 deal with syllogistic and, in turn, propositional and predicate logic, chapter 6 is on existential import, chapter 7 on subject and predicate and chapter 8 on classes. Chapter 9 adds negative variables to BS, and proves its soundness and completeness
-
43A non-retributive Kantian approach to punishmentRatio 17 (1). 2004.Traditionally Kant's theory of punishment has been seen as wholly retributive. Recent Kantian scholarship has interpreted the theory as more moderately retributive: punishment is deterrent in aim, and retributive only in so far as the amount and type of penalty is to be determined by retributive considerations (the ius talionis). But it is arguable that a more coherent Kantian theory of punishment can be developed which makes no appeal to retribution at all: hypothetical contractors would have n…Read more
Areas of Specialization
Philosophy of Language |
Applied Ethics |
Philosophy of Law |
Logic and Philosophy of Logic |
Areas of Interest
Philosophy of Law |
Logic and Philosophy of Logic |