Abstract
In the 1970’s, a controversy arose about a probability problem posed by Irving Copi. One side argued that a common spontaneous intuition about the problem is correct; the other side argued that this intuition is mistaken. Here, I argue (1) that the naïve intuition yields the correct answer, but accidentally and for a wrong reason; (2) that a more reflective intuition yields a wrong answer, and hence, is also mistaken; and (3) that an even more reflective intuition yields the correct answer for a correct reason. This warrants what I call optimistic fallibilism concerning intuitions about probability: although intuition is certainly prone to error in this domain, intuition has the capacity for self-correction. A naïve intuition that is mistaken can be replaced by a distinct, reflective intuition; and a reflective intuition that is mistaken can be replaced by another reflective intuition–with the process ultimately yielding a sound intuition.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 327-344 |
Number of pages | 18 |
Journal | Philosophical Psychology |
Volume | 34 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 2021 |
Keywords
- Copi
- Intuition
- conditionalization
- credence
- probability
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Applied Psychology
- Philosophy