Synthese

, Volume 191, Issue 11, pp 2403–2431 | Cite as

Logical dynamics of belief change in the community

Article

Abstract

In this paper we explore the relationship between norms of belief revision that may be adopted by members of a community and the resulting dynamic properties of the distribution of beliefs across that community. We show that at a qualitative level many aspects of social belief change can be obtained from a very simple model, which we call ‘threshold influence’. In particular, we focus on the question of what makes the beliefs of a community stable under various dynamical situations. We also consider refinements and alternatives to the ‘threshold’ model, the most significant of which is to consider changes to plausibility judgements rather than mere beliefs. We show first that some such change is mandated by difficult problems with belief-based dynamics related to the need to decide on an order in which different beliefs are considered. Secondly, we show that the resulting plausibility-based account results in a deterministic dynamical system that is non-deterministic at the level of beliefs.

Keywords

Belief revision Belief influence Community Plausibility judgement 

References

  1. Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andréka, H., Ryan, M., & Schobbens, P. Y. (2002). Operators and laws for combining preferential relations. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12, 12–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, N. (1975). The mathematical theory of infectious diseases and its applications. High Wycombe: Charles Griffin & Company.Google Scholar
  4. Bala, V., Goyal, S. (1996). Learning from Neighbors. Econometric Institute Reports. Erasmus University. http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=3XrESgAACAAJ
  5. Baltag, A., Moss, L., Solecki, S. (1998). The logic of public announcements, common knowledge and private suspicions. In: TARK 98.Google Scholar
  6. Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2008). A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision. In M. W. G. Bonanno & W. van der Hoek (Eds.), Logic and the foundations of game and decision theory, texts in logic and games (Vol. 3). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bass, F. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, 15(5), 215–227.Google Scholar
  8. Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., & Venema, Y. (2001). Modal logic. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Burgess, J. (1984). Basic tense logic, handbook of philosophical logic (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  10. DeGroot, M. (1974). Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(345), 118–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Domingos, P., Richardson, M. (2002). Mining the network value of customers. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp. 57–66. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  12. French, J. (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63(3), 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilbert, N., Troitzsch, K. (2005). Simulation for the social scientist, 2 edn. Open University Press. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike07-20
  14. Girard, P., Seligman, J., & Liu, F. (2012). General dynamic dynamic logic. In T. Bolander, T. Braüner, S. Ghilardi, & L. S. Moss (Eds.), Advances in modal logic (pp. 239–260). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Golub, B., & Jackson, M. (2010). Naive learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2(1), 112–149.Google Scholar
  16. Jackson, M. O., et al. (2008). Social and economic networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J., Tardos, E. (2003). Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In: Proceedings the 9th Acm International Conference, pp. 137–146. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kermack, W. O., & McKendrick, A. G. (1927). A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A, 115, 700–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liang, Z., & Seligman, J. (2011). A logical model of the dynamics of peer pressure. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 278, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morris, S. (2000). Contagion. The Review of Economic Studies, 67(1), 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mossel, E., Neeman, J., Tamuz, O. (2012). Majority dynamics and aggregation of information in social networks. arXiv, preprint arXiv:1207.0893.Google Scholar
  22. Nayak, A., Nelson, P., & Polansky, H. (1996). Belief change as change in epistemic entrenchment. Synthese, 109(2), 143–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rott, H. (2003). Basic entrenchment. Studia Logica, 73, 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Seligman, J., Liu, F., Girard, P. (2011). Logic in the community. In: M. Banerjee, A. Seth (eds.) Logic and its applications—4th Indian Conference, ICLA 2011, Delhi, India, January 5–11, 2011. Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6521, pp. 178–188.Google Scholar
  25. Seligman, J., Liu, F., Girard, P. (2013). Facebook and the epistemic logic of friendship. In: B.C. Schipper (ed.) Proceedings of the 14th Conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge,break pp. 229–238 (Chennai, India).Google Scholar
  26. van Benthem, J. (2007). Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic, 17, 129–156.Google Scholar
  27. van Benthem, J. (2011). Logical dynamics of information and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., & Kooi, B. (2006). Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation, 204(11), 1620–1662.Google Scholar
  29. van Ditmarsch, H. (2005). Prolegomena to dynamic logic for belief revision. Synthese(Knowledge, Rationality & Action), 147, 229–275.Google Scholar
  30. Veltman, F. (1985). Logics for conditionals. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations