Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:34:07.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Belief Revision and Relevance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Peter Gärdenfors
Peter Gärdenfors*
Affiliation:
University of Lund
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The theory of belief revision deals with models of states of belief and transitions between states of belief. The goal of the theory is to describe what should happen when you update a state of belief with new information. In the most interesting case, the new information is inconsistent with what you believe. This means that some of the old beliefs have to be deleted if one wants to remain within a consistent state of belief. A guiding idea is that the change should be minimal so that as few of the old beliefs as possible are given up.

A central problem for the theory of belief revision is what is meant by a minimal change of a state of belief. The solution to this problem depends to a large extent on the model of a state of belief that is adopted.

Type
Part VIII. Statistical Inference and Theory Change
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1990 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1990 , 1990 , pp. 349 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1991

Footnotes

1

Research for this article has been supported by the Swedish Council for Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences. I wish to thank Didier Dubois, David Miller, Henri Prade, Teddy Seidenfeld, and Wolfgang Spohn for helpful comments.

References

Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., and Makinson, D. (1985), “On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510-30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1950), Logical Foundations of Probability, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
David, A.P. (1979), “Conditional independence in statistical theory”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B, 41, 1–31.Google Scholar
Geiger, D. (1990), “Graphoids: A qualitative framework for probabilistic inference”, Technical Report R-142, Cognitive Systems Laboratory, UCLA.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (1978), “On the logic of relevance”, Synthese 37: 351-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (1984), “Epistemic importance and minimal changes of belief”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62, 136-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (1988), “The dynamics of belief: Contractions and revisions of probability functions”, Topoi 5: 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (1988), Knowledge in Flux, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. and Makinson, D. (1988), “Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment”, in Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, Vardi, M. (ed.). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Harper, W. L. (1975), “Rational belief change, Popper functions and counterfactuals”, Synthese 30: 221-62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. M. (1921), A Treatise on Probability, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (1988), Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. et al. (1971), Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance, Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1975), “Confirmation and relevance”, in Induction, Probability, and Confirmation, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Maxwell, G. and Anderson, R.M. Jr. (eds.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1982), “Causal schemas in judgments under uncertainty”, in Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar