Advertisement

Foundations of Science

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 599–610 | Cite as

Contemporary Epistemic Logic and the Lockean Thesis

  • Lorenz Demey
Article

Abstract

This paper studies the Lockean thesis from the perspective of contemporary epistemic logic. The Lockean thesis states that belief can be defined as ‘sufficiently high degree of belief’. Its main problem is that it gives rise to a notion of belief which is not closed under conjunction. This problem is typical for classical epistemic logic: it is single-agent and static. I argue that from the perspective of contemporary epistemic logic, the Lockean thesis fares much better. I briefly mention that it can successfully be extended from single-agent to multi-agent settings. More importantly, I show that accepting the Lockean thesis (and a more sophisticated version for conditional beliefs) leads to a significant and unexpected unification in the dynamic behavior of (conditional) belief and high (conditional) probability with respect to public announcements. This constitutes a methodological argument in favor of the Lockean thesis. Furthermore, if one accepts Baltag’s Erlangen program for epistemology, this technical observation has even stronger philosophical implications: because belief and high probability display the same dynamic behavior, it is plausible that they are indeed one and the same epistemic notion.

Keywords

Belief Degree of belief Epistemic logic Lockean thesis Public announcement logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aumann R. (1976) Agreeing to disagree. Annals of Statistics 4: 1236–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baltag A. (2008) Interview. In: Hendricks V. F., Pritchard D. (Eds.) Epistemology: 5 Questions. . Automatic Press, London, pp 21–37Google Scholar
  3. Baltag, A. (2011). Research profile. Available online at the author’s website: http://alexandru.tiddlyspot.com/.
  4. Baltag A., Moss L. S. (2004) Logics for epistemic programs. Synthese 139: 1–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltag A., Smets S. (2008) A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision. In: Bonanno G., van der Hoek W., Woolridge M. (Eds.) Texts in Logic and Games. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 9–58Google Scholar
  6. Barwise, J. (1988). Three views of common knowledge. In TARK ’88 Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  7. Dégremont, C. & Roy, O. (2009). Agreement theorems in dynamic-epistemic logic. In X. He J. Horty & E. Pacuit (Eds.), Logic, Rationality, and Interaction. LORI 2009 Proceedings, LNAI 5834. (pp. 105–118). Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Demey, L. (2010). Agreeing to disagree in probabilistic dynamic epistemic logic. Master’s thesis, ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. Demey, L. (2011a). The dynamic phenomenon of surprise. An analysis in probabilistic dynamic epistemic logic. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  10. Demey L. (2011b) Some remarks on the model theory of epistemic plausibility models. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 21: 375–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Douven I., Meijs W. (2007) Measuring coherence. Synthese 156: 405–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubois D., Prade H. (2009) Accepted beliefs, revision and bipolarity in the possibilistic framework. In: Huber F., Schmidt-Petri C. (Eds.) Degrees of Belief. Springer, Berlin, pp 161–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eels E., Fitelson B. (2000) Measuring confirmation and evidence. Journal of Philosophy 97: 663–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fagin R., Halpern J. (1994) Reasoning about knowledge and probability. Journal of the ACM 41: 340–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foley R. (1992) The epistemology of belief and the epistemology of degrees of belief. American Philosophical Quarterly 29: 111–121Google Scholar
  16. Goldman A. (1979) What is justified belief?. In: Pappas G. S. (Eds.) Justification and Knowledge. . Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldman A. (1999) Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Halpern J. Y., Moses Y. (1990) Knowledge and common knowledge in a distributed environment. Journal of the ACM 37: 549–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Halpern J. Y., Samet D., Segev E. (2009) Defining knowledge in terms of belief the modal logic perspective. Review of Symbolic Logic 2: 469–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hintikka J. (1962) Knowledge and Belief. An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  21. Huber, F., Schmidt-Petri, C. (Eds.) (2009) Degrees of Belief. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  22. Jeffrey R. (1983) The Logic of Decision (2nd edition). University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. Kajii A., Morris S. (1997) Common p-belief: The general case. Games and Economic Behavior 18: 73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kooi B. (2003) Probabilistic dynamic epistemic logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12: 381–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis D. (1969) Convention. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Monderer D., Samet D. (1989) Approximating common knowledge with common beliefs. Games and Economic Behavior 1: 170–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spohn W. (2009) A survey of ranking theory. In: Huber F., Schmidt-Petri C. (Eds.) Degrees of Belief. Springer, Berlin, pp 185–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van Benthem J. (2007) Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 17: 129–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van der Hoek W., van Linder B., Meyer J.-J. (1999) Group knowledge is not always distributed (neither is it always implicit). Mathematical Social Sciences 38: 215–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Ditmarsch H., van der Hoek W., Kooi B. (2007) Dyamic Epistemic Logic. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams M. (2001) Problems of Knowledge. A Critical Introduction to Epistemology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Logic and Analytic PhilosophyKU Leuven, University of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations