Fine‐tuning, Many Worlds, and the ‘Inverse Gambler's Fallacy’
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Juhl's point that fine-tuning per se does not do the work in the inference also seems to apply to Holder's argument.
“Juhl has a point, and it also seems to apply to Holder’s argument.”
From Is the fine-tuning evidence for a multiverse? (2024) · cites this paper as Juhl, 2005
Cited by
Sorted by citations
In Defense of the Requirement of Total Evidence
Draper, P. (2020) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/706084 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Is the fine-tuning evidence for a multiverse?
Goff, P. (2024) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-024-04621-z · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Juhl, C.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Corresponding author
- Juhl, Cory
- ORCID
- Juhl, Cory
- Venue
- Noûs
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-05-06
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 337-347
- ISSN
- 0029-4624 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-0068
- OpenAlex
- W2131079068
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 12.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Noûs (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Theology and Philosophy of Evil
- Keywords
- fine-tuning, many-worlds interpretation, anthropic principle, probability, cosmological argument, multiverse
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
