David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 122 (3):313 - 320 (2000)
Formal models of theory contraction entered the philosophicalliterature with the prototype model by Alchourrón, Gärdenfors,and Makinson (Alchourrón et al. 1985). One influential modelinvolves theory contraction with respect to a relation calledepistemic entrenchment which orders the propositions of a theoryaccording to their relative degrees of theoretical importance.Various postulates have been suggested for characterizingepistemic entrenchment formally. I argue here that threesuggested postulates produce inappropriately bizarre results whenapplied to scientific theories. I argue that the postulates callednoncovering, continuing up, and continuing down, implyrespectively that, (i) no scientific law is more epistemicallyentrenched than any of its instances, (ii) two distinct instances ofthe same scientific law must have different degrees of epistemicentrenchment, and (iii) any two scientific laws must have differentdegrees of epistemic entrenchment. I also argue that continuingup and continuing down each lead to incoherency.
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy Epistemology Logic Metaphysics Philosophy of Language|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Hans Halvorson (2012). What Scientific Theories Could Not Be. Philosophy of Science 79 (2):183-206.
Hans Rott (2003). Basic Entrenchment. Studia Logica 73 (2):257 - 280.
Thomas Andreas Meyer, Willem Adrian Labuschagne & Johannes Heidema (2000). Refined Epistemic Entrenchment. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (2):237-259.
Hans Rott (1992). Preferential Belief Change Using Generalized Epistemic Entrenchment. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1 (1):45-78.
Pavlos Peppas (2012). Comparative Possibility in Set Contraction. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (1):53-75.
Sten Lindström & Wlodek Rabinowicz (1991). Epistemic Entrenchment with Incomparabilities and Relational Belief Revision. In André Fuhrmann & Michael Morreau (eds.), The Logic of Theory Change. Springer.
James E. Roper (1982). Models and Lawlikeness. Synthese 52 (2):313 - 323.
Thomas Meyer, Johannes Heidema, Willem Labuschagne & Louise Leenen (2002). Systematic Withdrawal. Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (5):415-443.
Michael J. Shaffer (2002). Coherence, Justification, and the AGM Theory of Belief Revision. In Yves Bouchard (ed.), Perspectives on Coherentism. Editions du Scribe. 139--160.
Alexander Bochman (2002). Entrenchment Versus Dependence: Coherence and Foundations in Belief Change. [REVIEW] Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11 (1):3-27.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #154,633 of 1,410,138 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #107,954 of 1,410,138 )
How can I increase my downloads?