After there being no news yesterday, I was so nervous about not having updates to the philosophy papers blog that I did today’s a few hours early. There’s lots of fun stuff: the Laurie Paul papers that I already mentioned, five new papers by Ruth Millikan, and a long interview with David Armstrong.

I’ve been trying to come up with something to say about the Restall-Priest paper on the two-envelope paradox, and I can’t really find the right words. My impression is that their paper doesn’t get to the heart of the matter, but I can’t say exactly why. If you’re game, read the paper and see where in their taxonomy of versions of the two-envelope paradox the following version falls: envelopes A and B are marked with invisible ink, a St. Petersburg process of the kind described in Broome (1995) is used to select an amount of money to put in A, then a coin is tossed to determine whether we will put twice as much or half as much into B, then another coin is tossed to determine whether you receive envelope A or envelope B. As it turns out, though you don’t know this, you got envelope A. I think they recommend switching envelopes in that circumstance, which may be good advice, but I just can’t tell.