PhilArchive
open access
Why Epistemic Permissions Don’t Agglomerate – Another Reply to Littlejohn
Clayton Littlejohn claims that the permissibility solution to the lottery paradox requires an implausible principle in order to explain why epistemic permissions don't agglomerate. This paper argues that an uncontentious principle suffices to explain this. It also discusses another objection of Littlejohn's, according to which we’re not permitted to believe lottery propositions because we know that we’re not in a position to know them.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- The Permissibility Solution to the Lottery Paradox – Reply to Littlejohn#746366
- Epistemic logic and the foundations of game theory#697446
- The Epistemic Risk in Representation#739082
- Epistemic Value and the Jamesian Goals#740625
- Knowing and Not‐knowing For Your Own Good: The Limits of Epistemic Paternalism#703798
Record · ID 746369
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive