Studia Logica

, Volume 88, Issue 3, pp 431–451 | Cite as

A Model for Structural Changes of Belief

Article
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

The paper suggests a way of modeling belief changes within the tradition of formal belief revision theories. The present model extends the scope of traditional proposals, such as AGM, so as to take care of “structural belief changes” – a type of radical shifts that is best illustrated with, but not limited to, instances of scientific discovery; we obtain AGM expansions and contractions as limiting cases. The representation strategy relies on a non-standard use of a semantic machinery. More precisely, the model seeks to correlate knowledge states with interpretations of a given formal language L, in such a way that the epistemic state of an agent at a given time gives rise to a picture of how things could be, if there weren’t anything else to know. Interpretations of L proceed along supervaluational ideas; hence, the model as a whole can be seen as a particular application of supervaluational semantics to epistemic matters.

Keywords

Belief revision Supervaluations AGM-theory Radical belief changes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alchourrón C., Gärdenfors P., and Makinson D. (1985) ‘On the logic of theory change: Partial meet functions for contraction and revision’. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2): 510–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bilgrami A. (2000). ‘Is truth a goal of inquiry?: Rorty and Davidson on truth’. In: Robert Brandom (eds). Rorty and his Critics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 242–261Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bilgrami A. (2004) ‘Skepticism and pragmatism’. In: Denis McManus (eds) Wittgenstein and Scepticism. Routledge, London, pp. 56–75Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cresto, E., Inferring to the Best Explanation: A Decision Theoretic Approach, Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, NY, 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fuhrmann A. (1997). An Essay on Contraction. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gärdenfors P. (1988). Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kitcher P. (1978) ‘Theories, theorists and theoretical change’. The Philosophical Review 87(4): 519–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuhn T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, second edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levi I. (2004). Mild Contraction. Evaluating Loss of Information due to Loss of Belief. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rott H. (2000) ‘Two dogmas of belief revision’. The Journal of Philosophy 97(9): 503–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tennant N. (2006) ‘New foundations for a relational theory of theory revision’. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35(5): 489–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thagard P. (1992) Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Consejo Nacional de InvestigacionesCientíficas y TécnicasBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations