Changing the Scientific Corpus
There is a straightforward connection in terms of subject-matter between belief revision and one of the major issues in the philosophy of science, namely the dynamics of changes in scientific knowledge. But in spite of this connection, there has been relatively little contact between the two disciplines. There is an obvious reason for this lack of contact: The standard framework that is used in the belief change literature is not suitable for analyzing the mechanisms of change in science. The aim of this contribution is to identify the differences and show what modifications are needed to make the format suitable for modelling the development of scientific knowledge.
KeywordsBelief Revision Belief State Scientific Corpus Scientific Change Path Independence
- Aliseda, A. 2006. Abductive reasoning. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Hansson, S.O. 1997. Semi-revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic 7:151–175.Google Scholar
- Hansson, S.O. 1999. A textbook of belief dynamics. Theory change and database updating. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Hansson, S.O. 2010. Multiple and iterated contraction reduced to single-step single-sentence contraction. Synthese 173:153–177.Google Scholar
- Levi, I. 1991. The fixation of belief and its undoing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Lindström, S., and W. Rabinowicz. 1991. Epistemic entrenchment with incomparabilities and relational belief revision. In The logic of theory change, eds. A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau, 93–126. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Páez, A. 2006. The epistemic value of explanation. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003081.
- Pagnucco, M. 1996. The role of abductive reasoning within the process of belief revision, PhD Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
- Peirce, C. 1934. The fixation of belief. In Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, eds. C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss, vol. 5, 223–247. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Rott, H. 2001. Change, choice and inference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Schurz, G. 2008. Patterns of abduction. Synthese 164:201–234.Google Scholar
- Ziman, J. 1996. ‘Postacademic science’: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies 9:67–80.Google Scholar