Advertisement

Contraction, Revision, Expansion: Representing Belief Change Operations

  • Sven Ove Hansson
Chapter
Part of the Outstanding Contributions to Logic book series (OCTR, volume 1)

Abstract

The underlying idealizations in Krister Segerberg’s Dynamic Doxastic Logic (DDL) are investigated in comparison with other belief revision models. It is argued that the doxastic voluntarism of the proposed interpretation is problematic but can be discarded. The treatment of conditional operators in DDL is discussed, and it is proposed that the use of conditional operators not satisfying the Ramsey test should be further investigated.

Keywords

Belief Revision Belief State Belief Change Conditional Belief Conditional Sentence 
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.

References

  1. 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. 2.
    Audi, R. (2001). Doxastic voluntarism and the ethics of belief. In M. Setup (Ed.), Knowledge, truth, and duty. Essays on epistemic justification, responsibility, and virtue (pp. 93–111). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aucher, G. (2003). A combined system for update logic and belief revision, ILLC report MoL-2003-03. Amsterdam: ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baltag, A., Moss, L., & Solecki, S. (1998). The logic of public announcements, common knowledge, and private suspicions. In I. Gilboa (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (TARK 98) (pp. 43–56). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2008). A Qualitative Theory of dynamic interactive belief revision. In G. Bonanno, W. van der Hoek, M. Wooldridge (Eds.) Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory (LOFT 7), Texts in Logic and Games 3 (pp. 11–58). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cantwell, J. (1997). On the logic of small changes in hypertheories. Theoria, 63, 54–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fermé, E., & Hansson, S. O. (2011). AGM 25 years. Twenty-five years of research in belief change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40, 295–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fuhrmann, A. (1991). Theory contraction through base contraction. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 20, 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fuhrmann, A., & Hansson, S. O. (1994). A survey of multiple contraction. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 3, 39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gärdenfors, P. (1986). Belief revisions and the Ramsey test for conditionals. Philosophical Review, 95, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hansson, S. O. (1992). In defense of the Ramsey test. Journal of Philosophy, 89, 522–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hansson, S. O. (2000). Formalization in philosophy. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 6, 162–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hansson, S. O. (2009). Replacement—a Sheffer stroke for belief revision. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38, 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hansson, S. O. (2010). Methodological pluralism in philosophy. Theoria, 76, 189–191.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hansson, S. O. (2011). Logic of belief revision. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-belief-revision)
  16. 16.
    Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief: An introduction to the logic of the two notions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leitgeb, H., & Segerberg, K. (2007). Dynamic doxastic logic: Why, how, and where to? Synthese, 155, 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Levi, I. (1977). Subjunctives, dispositions and chances. Synthese, 34, 423–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levi, I. (1988). Iteration of conditionals and the Ramsey test. Synthese, 76, 49–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levi, I. (1991). The fixation of belief and its undoing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lindström, S., & Rabinowicz, W. (1991). Epistemic entrenchment with incomparabilities and relational belief revision. In A. Fuhrmann & M. Morreau (Eds.), The logic of theory change (pp. 208–228). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lindström, S., & Rabinowicz, W. (1999). DDL unlimited. Dynamic doxastic logic for introspective agents. Erkenntnis, 51, 353–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Montmarquet, J. (2008). Virtue and voluntarism. Synthese, 161, 393–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mourad, R. (2008). Choosing to believe. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 63, 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nickel, P. J. (2010). Voluntary belief on a reasonable basis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81, 312–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nottelmann, N. (2006). The analogy argument for doxastic voluntarism. Philosophical Studies, 131, 559–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Plaza, J. (1989). Logics of public communications. In M. L. Emrich, M. S. Pfeifer, M. Hadzikadic, & Z. W. Ras (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, (pp. 201–216). Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    de Rijke, M. (1994). Meeting some neighbours. In J. van Eijck, & A. Visser (Eds.), Logic and information flow, (pp. 170–195). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rott, H. (1989). Conditionals and theory change: Revisions expansions, and additions. Synthese, 81, 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scott-Kakures, D. (1994). On belief and the captivity of the will. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54, 77–103. [p. 83, to be checked.].Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Segerberg, K. (1989). A note on an impossibility theorem of Gärdenfors. Noûs, 23, 351–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Segerberg, K. (1995). Belief revision from the point of view of doxastic logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 3, 535–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Segerberg, K. (1996). Three recipes for revision. Theoria, 62, 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Segerberg, K. (1997). Proposal for a theory of belief revision along the lines of Lindström and Rabinowicz. Fundamenta Informaticae, 32, 183–191.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Segerberg, K. (1999). Two traditions in the logic of belief: Bringing them together. In H. J. Ohlbach & U. Reyle (Eds.), Logic, language and reasoning: Essays in honour of Dov Gabbay (pp. 135–147). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stalnaker, R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In N. Rescher (Ed.), Studies in logical theory. American philosophical quarterly monograph series (Vol. 2). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    van Benthem, J. (1989). Semantic parallels in natural language and computation. In H.-D. Ebbinghaus, J. Fernandez-Prida, M. Garrido, D. Lascar, M. Rodrigues Artalejo Logic Colloquium’87 (pp. 331–375). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    van Benthem, J. (1995). Logic and the flow of information. In Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics (Vol. 134, pp. 693–724).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    van Ditmarsch, H. (2005). Prolegomena to dynamic logic for belief revision, Synthese (Knowledge, Rationality & Action), 147, 229–275.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic. Synthese Library. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wansing, H. (2000). A reduction of doxastic logic to action logic. Erkenntnis, 53, 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wansing, H. (2006). Doxastic decisions, epistemic justification, and the logic of agency. Philosophical Studies, 128, 201–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)StockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations