Abstract

The Principle of Indifference says that if there are a finite number of propositions and a state of knowledge according to which none of the propositions is more plausible than any other, then, conditional on that knowledge, all of them have the same probability. Most researchers reject the principle because there exist counterexamples believed to prove that it leads to contradictions. We analyse three examples representative of the objections to the principle and show that, rather than disproving it, they suffer from a common error in applying it. From this and the fact that the Principle of Indifference complies with plausible reasoning we conclude that it does not lead to contradictions.

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.