, 75:183 | Cite as

Verisimilitude and Belief Change for Conjunctive Theories

Original Article


Theory change is a central concern in contemporary epistemology and philosophy of science. In this paper, we investigate the relationships between two ongoing research programs providing formal treatments of theory change: the (post-Popperian) approach to verisimilitude and the AGM theory of belief change. We show that appropriately construed accounts emerging from those two lines of epistemological research do yield convergences relative to a specified kind of theories, here labeled “conjunctive”. In this domain, a set of plausible conditions are identified which demonstrably capture the verisimilitudinarian effectiveness of AGM belief change, i.e., its effectiveness in tracking truth approximation. We conclude by indicating some further developments and open issues arising from our results.


  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. Brink, C., & Heidema, J. (1987). A verisimilar ordering of theories phrased in a propositional language. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 38, 533–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carnap, R. (1950). Logical foundations of probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cevolani, G., & Calandra, F. (2010). Approaching the truth via belief change in propositional languages. In M. Suárez, M. Dorato, & M. Rèdei, (Eds.), EPSA epistemology and methodology of science: Launch of the European Philosophy of Science Association, Chap. 5 (pp. 47–62). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Cevolani, G., & Festa, R. (2009). Scientific change, belief dynamics and truth approximation. La Nuova Critica, 51–52, 27–59.Google Scholar
  6. Cevolani, G., Crupi, V., & Festa, R. (2010). The whole truth about Linda: Probability, verisimilitude and a paradox of conjunction. In: M. D’Agostino, G. Giorello, F. Laudisa, T. Pievani, & C. Sinigaglia (Eds.), New essays in logic and philosophy of science (pp. 603–615). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Cevolani, G., Festa, R., & Kuipers, T. A. F. (2011a). Verisimilitude and belief change for nomic conjunctive theories, manuscript.Google Scholar
  8. Cevolani, G., Crupi, V., & Festa, R. (2011b). Features of verisimilitude (in preparation).Google Scholar
  9. Festa, R. (1987). Theory of similarity, similarity of theories, and verisimilitude. In T. A. F. Kuipers (Ed.), What is closer-to-the-truth? (pp. 145–176). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  10. Festa, R. (2007). Verisimilitude, qualitative theories, and statistical inferences. In: S. Pihlström, P. Raatikainen, & M. Sintonen (Eds.) Approaching truth: Essays in honour of Ilkka Niiniluoto (pp. 143–178). Londra: College Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Fuhrmann, A., & Hansson, S. O. (1994). A survey of multiple contractions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 3(1), 39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in flux: Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  13. Gemes, K. (2007). Verisimilitude and content. Synthese, 154(2), 293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansson S. O. (1999). A textbook of belief dynamics: Theory change and database updating. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. Hintikka, J. (1973). Logic, language-games and information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kelly, K. T., & Glymour, C. (1989). Convergence to the truth and nothing but the truth. Philosophy of Science, 56(2), 185–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuipers, T. A. F. (1982). Approaching descriptive and theoretical truth. Erkenntnis, 18, 343–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuipers, T. A. F. (2000). From instrumentalism to constructive realism. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Kuipers, T. A. F. (2011a). Basic and refined nomic truth approximation by evidence-guided belief revision in AGM-terms. Erkenntnis (this volume).Google Scholar
  20. Kuipers, T. A. F. (2011b). Dovetailing belief base revision with (basic) truth approximation. Forthcoming in the proceedings of the Logic, Reasoning and Rationality conference (Gent, September 20–22, 2010).Google Scholar
  21. Levi, I. (1980). The enterprise of knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Miller, D. (1974). Popper’s qualitative theory of verisimilitude. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25(2), 166–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Niiniluoto, I. (1987). Truthlikeness. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Niiniluoto, I. (1998). Verisimilitude: The third period. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 49(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Niiniluoto, I. (1999). Belief revision and truthlikeness. In: B. Hansson, S. Halldén, N. E. Sahlin, & W. Rabinowicz (Eds.), Internet Festschrift for Peter Gärdenfors. Lund: Department of Philosophy, Lund University.
  26. Niiniluoto, I. (2010). Theory change, truthlikeness, and belief revision. In: M. Suárez, M. Dorato, & M. Rèdei (Eds.), EPSA Epistemology and Methodology of Science: Launch of the European Philosophy of Science Association (pp. 189–199). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Niiniluoto, I. (2011) Revising beliefs toward the truth. Erkenntnis (this volume).Google Scholar
  28. Oddie, G. (1986). Likeness to truth. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  29. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge (3rd ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  30. Rott, H. (2000). Two dogmas of belief revision. Journal of Philosophy, 97, 503–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schurz G (2011) Verisimilitude and belief revision. Erkenntnis (this volume).Google Scholar
  32. Schurz, G., & Weingartner, P. (1987) Verisimilitude defined by relevant consequence-elements. In: Kuipers T. A. F. (Ed.), What is closer-to-the-truth? (pp. 47–77). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  33. Schurz, G., & Weingartner, P. (2010). Zwart and Franssen’s impossibility theorem holds for possible-world-accounts but not for consequence-accounts to verisimilitude. Synthese 172, 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tichý, P. (1974). On Popper’s definitions of verisimilitude. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25(2), 155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zwart, S. D. (2001). Refined Verisimilitude. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gustavo Cevolani
    • 1
    • 2
  • Vincenzo Crupi
    • 3
  • Roberto Festa
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.SpilambertoItaly
  3. 3.Center for Mathematical PhilosophyLudwig Maximilian UniversityMunichGermany
  4. 4.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TriesteTriesteItaly

Personalised recommendations