Synthese

, 171:235 | Cite as

Revising incomplete attitudes

Article

Abstract

Bayesian models typically assume that agents are rational, logically omniscient and opinionated. The last of these has little descriptive or normative appeal, however, and limits our ability to describe how agents make up their minds (as opposed to changing them) or how they can suspend or withdraw their opinions. To address these limitations this paper represents the attitudinal states of non-opinionated agents by sets of (permissible) probability and desirability functions. Several basic ways in which such states of mind can be changed are then characterised and compared with those found in AGM style models of attitude revision. Finally these models are employed to describe how agents make up their mind when deliberating.

Keywords

Incomplete attitudes Belief change Preference change Bayesianism Indeterminate beliefs Deliberation 

References

  1. Bradley R. (1999) Conditional desirability. Theory and Decision 47: 23–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley R. (2007) The kinematics of belief and desire. Synthese 156: 513–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradley R. (2009) Becker’s thesis and three models of preference change. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8: 223–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gärdenfors P. (1988) Knowledge in flux. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Good I. J. (1952) Rational decisions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 14: 107–114Google Scholar
  6. Good I. J. (1983) Good thinking. University of Minnesota Press, Minneappolis MNGoogle Scholar
  7. Grove, A., & Halpern, J. (1998). Updating sets of probabilities. In Proceedings of the fourteenth conference on uncertainty in AI (pp. 173–182).Google Scholar
  8. Hansson S.-O. (1995) Changes in preference. Theory and Decision 38: 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansson S.-O. (2001) The structure of values and norms. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Jeffrey R.C. (1983) Bayesianism with a human face. In: Jeffrey R.C. (eds) Probability and the art of judgement.. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Jeffrey, R. C. (Ed.). (1992). Probability and the art of judgement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Levi I. (1974) On indeterminate probabilities. Journal of Philosophy 71: 391–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levi I. (1980) The enterprise of knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Levi I. (1986) Hard choices. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Levi I. (1990) Compromising Bayesianism: A plea for indeterminacy. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 25: 347–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nehring K. (2000) A theory of rational decision under ignorance. Theory and Decision 48: 205–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nehring, K. (2008). Imprecise probabilistic beliefs as a context for decision-making under ambiguity, mimeo.Google Scholar
  18. Spohn W. (1986) The representation of popper measures. Topoi 5: 69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Steele K. (2007) Distinguishing indeterminate belief from ‘risk-averse’ preferences. Synthese 158(2): 189–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Voorbraak, F. (1996) Probabilistic belief expansion and conditioning. ILLC Research Report LP-96-07, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Voorbraak F. (2000) Partial probability: Theory and applications. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 8(3): 331–346Google Scholar
  22. Walley P. (1991) Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.London School of EconomicsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations