Morgenbesser’s Intuition, Infinitely Many Coins, and Substitution

Clicks: 13
ID: 333666
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #56 of 61 articles by views in journal of pharmaceutical analysis

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract While an indeterministic coin was in the air, you declined to bet that it would land heads. The coin landed heads. Morgenbesser intuited that if you had bet heads, you would have won. Goodsell (2022) argues, through a thought experiment involving infinitely many coins, that Morgenbesser’s intuition is mistaken. Crucially, he assumes the Substitution principle, according to which necessarily equivalent propositions have the same counterfactual consequences. I argue that Goodsell’s argument proves too much, by analysing a closely related thought experiment. My conclusion is two-fold. Goodsell’s original thought experiment fails to put pressure on Morgenbesser’s intuition. Yet my thought experiment, inspired by his, may succeed in proving Substitution false.
Reference Key
openalex_W7223313554 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors
Journal journal of pharmaceutical analysis
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/analys/anag083
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.