Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:26:11.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rational Conceptual Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

William L. Harper
William L. Harper*
Affiliation:
The University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the salient features of Carnap's systems of inductive logic is a conditionalization learning model, which also plays a fundamental role in the orthodox Bayesian account of rationality. This learning model does not allow for revision of previously accepted evidence. It is, therefore, not adequate to represent all rational learning by an agent who accepts corrigible propositions as evidence. Recently I used a generalization of the concept of conditional belief to extend the model so that rational revision of previously accepted evidence can be accommodated. My generalization of conditional belief carries with it a natural way of representing an agent's conceptual framework. In this paper I exploit this representation to produce learning models that can accommodate rational conceptual change.

The idea of conceptual change has received considerable attention in recent work of philosophers of science. The following quotation from Hilary Putnam is instructive.

Type
Part VIII. Systems of Inductive Logic Where Generalizations Can Receive Non-Zero Probabilities
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1976 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1976 , 1976 , pp. 462 - 494
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Bar-Hillel, Y. (ed.). Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1965.Google Scholar
[2] Carnap, R. and Jeffrey, R. (eds.). Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability Vol. I. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Csaszar, A. “Sur la Structure des Espaces de Probabilite Conditionnelle.” flcta Mathematica Hungarica 6(1955): 337–361.Google Scholar
[4] De Finetti, B. Theory of Probability. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974.Google Scholar
[5] Dempster, A.P. “A Generalization of Bayesian Inference.” Royal Statistical Society.Journal Ser. B 30(1968): 205–297.Google Scholar
[6] Feyerabend, P. “Against Method.” In [24]. Pages 17-130.Google Scholar
[7] Feyerabend, P.. “Consolations for the Specialist.” In [16]. Pages 197-230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Harper, W.L. “Rational Belief Change, Popper Functions and Counterfactuals.” Synthese 30(1975): 221–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Harper, W.L.. “Ramsey Test Conditionals and Iterated Belief Change.” In [11] Vol. I. Pages 117-135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Harper, W.L.. “Bayesian Learning Models with Revision of Evidence.” Proceedings 1976 Meeting of Society for Exact Philosophy, forthcoming in Philosophia.Google Scholar
[11] Harper, W.L. and Hooker, C.A. (eds.). Foundations of Probability Theory, Statistical Inference and Statistical Theories of Science Vol. I,II,III. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1976.Google Scholar
[12] Henkin, L., Suppes, P.C., and Tarski, A. (eds.). The Axiomatic Method with Special Reference to Geometry and Physics. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1959.Google Scholar
[13] Jeffrey, R.C. The Logic of Decision. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.Google Scholar
[14] Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[15] Kyburg, H. Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1961.Google Scholar
[16] Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Lewis, D.K. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell, 1973.Google Scholar
[18] Levi, I. “On Indeterminate Probabilities.” Journal of Philosophy 71(1974): 391–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19] MacKay, A.F. and Merrill, D.D. (eds.). Issues in the Philosophy of Language (Proceedings of the 13th Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
[20] McKinsey, J.C.C., Sugar, A.C. and Suppes, P.C. “Axiomatic Foundations of Classical Particle Mechanics.” Journal of Rational Mechanics and Analysis 11(1953): 253–272.Google Scholar
[21] McKinsey, J.C.C. and Suppes, P. “On the Notion of Invariance in Classical Mechanics.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 5(1955): 290–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22] Popper, K.R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper and Row, 1959.Google Scholar
[23] Putnam, H. Mind Language and Reality (Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24] Radner, M. and Winokur, S. (eds.). Analysis of Theories and Methods (Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science IV). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1970.Google Scholar
[25] Renyi, A. “On a New Axiomatic Theory of Probability.” Acta Mathematica Hungarica 6(1955): 285–333.Google Scholar
[26] Renyi, A. Foundations of Probability. San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1970.Google Scholar
[27] Robb, A.A. Geometry of Space and Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936.Google Scholar
[28] Savage, L.J. Foundations of Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1954.Google Scholar
[29] Shafer, G. “A Theory of Statistical Evidence.” In [11] Vol.II. Pages 365-436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[30] Sneed, J. The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[31] Stalnaker, R. “A Theory of Conditionals.” Studies in Logical Theory (American Philosophical Quarterly, Supplementary Monograph Series No. 2). Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968 PagesGoogle Scholar
[32] Stalnaker, R.. “Probability and Conditionals.” Philosophy of Science 37(1970): 64–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[33] Stalnaker, R.. “Letter to Harper.” In [11] Vol. I. Pages 113-115.Google Scholar
[34] Stalnaker, R.. “Propositions.” In [19]. Pages 79-91.Google Scholar
[35] Stalnaker, R.. “Assertion.” Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
[36] Stegmüller, W. The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[37] Suppes, P.C. “Axioms for Relativistic Kinematics With or Without Parity.” In [12]. Pages 291-307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[38] Suppes, P.C.. “The Kinematics and Dynamics of Concept Formation.” In [1]. Pages 405-414.Google Scholar
[39] van Fraassen, B.C. “Representation of Conditional Probabilities.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 5(1976): 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar