There are good reasons to be sceptical about any immediate wide ranging consequences if the probabilistic acceptance rule is rejected in the lottery paradox. I have argued that the belief of any one ticket losing amounts to an inductive argument with specific properties - it is an inference from the general to the particular, truth value of the conclusion in each instance is partly a matter of luck, the conclusion can not be tested further etc. If a certain kind of inference does not grant justified belief, it would be hasty to assume that no inference at all can grant justified belief. I have argued further that when the probability in the lottery case is compared to the probability in a case based on sense perception, it is objective probability compared to a subjective probability. Since probabilities are qualitatively different, what applies to one need not apply to the other. An objective probability may be insufficient to grant a justified belief, however, that does not reflect on subjective probability. Subjective probability may nevertheless grant the possibility of a justified belief. I have argued further that subjective probability applies to the lottery case as well. It may be somewhat higher than in a sense perception based case, or it may be 100%, but that does not compensate for the deficiency in the objective probability.…
