Roger White ([2010]) argued for a principle of indifference. Hart and Titelbaum ([2015]) showed that White’s argument relied on an intuition about conditioning on biconditionals that, while widely shared, is incorrect. Hawthorne, Landes, Wallmann, and Williamson ([2017]) argue for a principle of indifference. Remarkably, their argument relies on the same faulty intuition. We explain their intuition, explain why it’s faulty, and show how it generates their principle of indifference. 1. Introduction2. El Caminos and Indifference 2.1. Overview2.2. Fins and antennas2.3. HLWW in the example2.4. The restrictiveness of Condition 22.5. Summary3. The Specifics of HLWW s Argument 3.1. Mapping their conditions to our equations3.2. HLWW’s responses to objections Introduction El Caminos and Indifference 2.1. Overview2.2. Fins and antennas2.3. HLWW in the example2.4. The restrictiveness of Condition 22.5. Summary Overview Fins and antennas HLWW in the example The restrictiveness of Condition 2 Summary The Specifics of HLWW s Argument 3.1. Mapping their conditions to our equations3.2. HLWW’s responses to objections Mapping their conditions to our equations HLWW’s responses to objections

中文翻译：

---

主要原则并不意味着无差异原则，因为以双条件为条件是违反直觉的

Roger White ([2010]) 主张冷漠原则。Hart 和 Titelbaum ([2015]) 表明怀特的论点依赖于关于以双条件条件为条件的直觉，虽然广泛认同，但这是不正确的。Hawthorne、Landes、Wallmann 和 Williamson ([2017]) 主张冷漠原则。值得注意的是，他们的论点依赖于同样错误的直觉。我们解释他们的直觉，解释为什么它是错误的，并展示它如何产生他们的冷漠原则。1. 介绍 2. 埃尔卡米诺斯和冷漠 2.1。概述2.2. 鳍和天线 2.3。HLWW在example2.4。条件 22.5 的限制。总结3. HLWW 论证的细节 3.1。将他们的条件映射到我们的方程 3.2。HLWW 对反对意见的回应 介绍 El Caminos 和冷漠 2.1。概述2.2. 鳍和天线 2.3。HLWW在example2.4。条件 22.5 的限制。总结 概述 示例中的鳍和天线 HLWW 条件 2 的限制 总结 HLWW 的具体细节 论证 3.1。将他们的条件映射到我们的方程 3.2。HLWW 对反对意见的回应 将他们的条件映射到我们的方程 HLWW 对反对意见的回应