How Infallible but Corrigible Full Belief Is Possible

  • Isaac LeviEmail author
Part of the Springer Graduate Texts in Philosophy book series (SGTP, volume 1)


Inquirers ought to change beliefs for good reason. What those good reasons are depend on the proximate goals of their inquiries. William James urged us to seek Truth and avoid Error in forming beliefs. He ought to have said: Seek Information and avoid Error. The common features of the proximate goals of scientific inquiries ought to be to answer questions of interest without error and in a manner that yields valuable information.


Boolean Algebra Choice Function Potential State Belief State Credal Probability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: Partial meet functions for contraction and revision. Journal for Symbolic Logic, 50, 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carnap, R. (1960). The aim of inductive logic. In E. Nagel, P. Suppes, & A. Tarski (Eds.), Logic, methodology and philosophy of science (pp. 302–318). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, L. J. (1970). The implications of induction. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, L. J. (1977). The probable and the provable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Davidson, D. (1998). Truth rehabilitated, Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  6. De Finetti, B. (1964). Foresight: Its logical laws, its subjective sources. In H. E. Kyburg & H. Smokler (Eds.), Studies in subjective probability (pp. 93–158). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Hansson, S. O., & Olsson, E. J. (1995). Levi contractions and AGM contractions: a comparison. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 36, 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jeffrey, R. C. (1965). The logic of decision. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Levi, I. (1967a). Gambling with truth. Cambridge: MIT Press, Paper, 1973.Google Scholar
  10. Levi, I. (1967b). Information and inference. Synthese, 17, 369–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Levi, I. (1974). On indeterminate probabilities. The Journal of Philosophy, 71, 391–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Levi, I. (1980). The enterprise of knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press, Paper, 1983.Google Scholar
  13. Levi, I. (1983). Truth, fallibility and the growth of knowledge. In R. S. Cohen & M. W. Wartofsky (Eds.), Language, logic and method (pp. 153–174). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levi, I. (1986). Hard choices: Decision making under unresolved conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Levi, I. (1991). The fixation of belief and its undoing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Paper, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levi, I. (1997). For the sake of the argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Paper, 2007.Google Scholar
  17. Levi, I. (2002). Maximizing and satisficing measures of evidential support. In M. David (Ed.), Reading natural philosophy: Essays in the history and philosophy of science and mathematics (pp. 315–333). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  18. Levi, I. (2003). Contraction from epistemic hell is routine. Synthese, 135, 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levi, I. (2004). Mild contraction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levi, I. (2006). Informational value should be relevant and damped! Reply to Rott (2006).Google Scholar
  21. Niiniluoto, I. (1984). Is science progressive? Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  22. Olsson, E. J. (2003). Avoiding epistemic hell, Levi on testimony and consistency. Synthese, 135, 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pagnucco, M., & Rott, I. (1999). Severe withdrawal and recovery. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 28, 501–547. See ‘Erratum’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 29 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ramsey, F. P., (1990). Philosophial papers (D. H. Mellor, Ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rott, H. (1993). Belief contraction in the context of the general theory of rational choice. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 58, 1426–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rott, H. (2001). Change, choice and inference: A study of belief revision and nonmonotonic reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rott, H. (2006). The value of truth and the value of information: On Isaac Levi’s epistemology. In E. Olsson (Ed.), Knowledge and inquiry (pp. 179–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Shackle, G. L. S. (1949, 1952). Expectation in economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Shackle, G. L. S. (1961, 1969). Decision, order and time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Spohn, W. (1988). Ordinal conditional functions: A dynamic theory of epistemic states. In W. Harper & B. Skyrms (Eds.), Causation in decision, belief change and statistics (pp. 105–134). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations