Skip to main content
Log in

Basing Belief on Quasi-Factive Evidence

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Global Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Topological semantics have proved to be a very fruitful approach in formal epistemology, two noticeable representatives being the interior semantics and topological evidence models. In this paper, we introduce the concept of quasi-factive evidence as a way to account for untruthful evidence in the interior semantics. This allows us to import concepts from topological evidence models, thereby connecting the two frameworks in spite of their apparent disparities. This approach sheds light on the interpretation of belief in the interior semantics, and gives meaning to concepts that used to be essentially technical: the closure-interior semantics can be interpreted as the condition of existence of a quasi-factive justification, while the extremally disconnected spaces are now characterized as those where the available information is always consistent. But our most important result is the equivalence between the interior-closure-interior semantics and what we call the strengthening condition, along with a sound and complete axiomatization. Finally, we build on this strengthening condition to introduce a notion of relative plausibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not applicable

Code Availability

Not applicable

Notes

  1. That is, a subspace of an extremally disconnected space may not be extremally disconnected itself.

  2. It technically makes sense to interpret formulas in other spaces, but then the Cl-Int semantics no longer has the intended properties (it does not even define a normal modal operator).

  3. Actually the structures they consider are topological evidence models namely topological models equipped with a subbase whose elements are called basic pieces of evidence, but this is of little interest here.

  4. For simplicity the recipient of the letter is none of the other primary characters.

  5. We assume that their accusations are either correct or made up—no honest mistake—and that conspirators do not betray each other.

References

  • Baltag A, Bezhanishvili N, Özgün A, Smets S (2013) The topology of belief, belief revision and defeasible knowledge. In: International Workshop on Logic, Rationality and Interaction, pp. 27–40. Springer

  • Baltag A, Bezhanishvili N, Özgün A, Smets S (2015) The topology of full and weak belief. In: International Tbilisi symposium on logic, language, and computation, pp. 205–228. Springer

  • Baltag A, Bezhanishvili N, Özgün A, Smets S (2019) A topological approach to full belief. J Philos Logic 48:205–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltag A, Bezhanishvili N, Özgün A, Smets S (2022) Justified belief, knowledge, and the topology of evidence. Synthese 200(6):512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezhanishvili G, Bezhanishvili N, Lucero-Bryan J, van Mill J (2015) S4.3 and hereditarily extremally disconnected spaces. Georgian Math J 22(4):469–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorndahl A, Özgün A (2020) Logic and topology for knowledge, knowability, and belief. Rev Symbol Logic 13(4):748–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn P, de Rijke M, Venema Y (2001) Modal logic. Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gettier E (1963) Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis 23(6):121–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh S, de Jongh D (2013) Comparing strengths of beliefs explicitly. Logic J IGPL 21(3):488–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka J (1962) Knowledge and belief: an introduction to the logic of the two notions

  • McKinsey J, Tarski A (1944) The algebra of topology. Ann Math pp 141–191

  • Özgün A (2013) Topological models for belief and belief revision. Master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

  • Ryszard E (1989) General topology. Heldermann Verlag, Sigma Series in Pure Mathematics

  • Stalnaker R (2006) On logics of knowledge and belief. Philos stud 128(1):169–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinsvold C (2007) Topological models of belief logics. City University of New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem J, Bezhanishvili G (2007) Modal logics of space. In: Handbook of spatial logics, pp. 217–298. Springer

  • van Benthem J, Pacuit E (2011) Dynamic logics of evidence-based beliefs. Studia Logica 99(1–3):61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem J, Fernandez-Duque D, Pacuit E (2014) Evidence and plausibility in neighborhood structures. Ann Pure Appl Logic 165(1):106–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Ditmarsch H, van der Hoek W, Kooi B (2007) Dynamic epistemic logic, vol 337. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickers S (1996) Topology via logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Alexandru Baltag for supervising this work, and to François Schwarzentruber for his valuable feedback and suggestions. I also would like to thank one anonymous referee for proposing a direct proof of Theorem 4.1, and an other one whose comments greatly contributed to improve the clarity of this paper.

Funding

Not applicable

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Not applicable

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Quentin Gougeon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: General Topology

Appendix: General Topology

Definition A.1

Let \(X\) be a set. A topology on a \(X\) is a collection of sets \(\tau \subseteq \mathcal {P}({X})\) such that:

  • \(\tau\) contains \(\varnothing\) and \(X\),

  • \(\tau\) is closed under arbitrary unions, i.e. if \((U_i)_{i \in I} \in \tau ^I\), then \(\bigcup _{i \in I}U_i \in \tau\),

  • \(\tau\) is closed under finite intersections, i.e. for all \(U\in \tau\) and \(V\in \tau\), we have \(U\cap V\in \tau\).

The pair \((X,\tau )\) is then said to be a topological space, and elements of \(\tau\) are said to be open in \(X\).

Alternatively, a topology can be presented by a generating family, also called a subbase:

Definition A.2

Let \(B\subseteq \mathcal {P}({X})\) be a collection of subsets of \(X\). The topology generated by \(B\) is

$$\begin{aligned} \tau \,{{:}} {=}\,\left\{ \bigcup _{i \in I} \bigcap _{j=1}^{n_i} U^i_j \ \biggr |\ I \text { is a set and for all } i \in I, U^i_1, \dots , U^i_{n_i} \in B\right\} . \end{aligned}$$

This is the smallest topology containing the elements of \(B\).

A subset is called closed if its complement is open. A subset \(A \subseteq X\) is called a neighbourhood of a point \(x\in X\) if there exists an open set \(U\) such that \(x\in U\) and \(U\subseteq A\).

Definition A.3

Let \(Y\subseteq X\). The subspace topology on \(Y\) is defined by \(\tau _{Y} \,{{:}} {=}\,\{U\cap Y\mid U\in \tau \}\). The pair \((Y,\tau _{Y})\) is a topological space and is called a subspace of \((X,\tau )\).

Two crucial topological notions are the interior and closure operators.

Definition A.4

Let \(A \subseteq X\). The interior \(\text {Int} _{}(A)\) of A is the set of all points of which A is a neighbourhood:

$$\begin{aligned} \text {Int} _{}(A) \,{{:}} {=}\,\{x\in X\mid \exists U\in \tau ,\ x\in U\subseteq A\}. \end{aligned}$$

Definition A.5

Let \(A \subseteq X\). The closure \(\text {Cl} _{}(A)\) of A is the set of all points whose every open neighbourhood intersects A:

$$\begin{aligned} \text {Cl} _{}(A) \,{{:}} {=}\,\{x\in X\mid \forall U\in \tau ,\ x\in U\implies U\cap A \ne \varnothing \}. \end{aligned}$$

We summarize in Table 7 a collection of standard properties of these operators, that we extensively use in this article.

Table 7 Classical properties of the interior and closure operators

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gougeon, Q. Basing Belief on Quasi-Factive Evidence. glob. Philosophy 33, 50 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-023-09698-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-023-09698-8

Keywords

Navigation