Severe withdrawal (and recovery)
Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (5):501-547 (1999)
| Abstract | The problem of how to remove information from an agent's stock of beliefs is of paramount concern in the belief change literature. An inquiring agent may remove beliefs for a variety of reasons: a belief may be called into doubt or the agent may simply wish to entertain other possibilities. In the prominent AGM framework for belief change, upon which the work here is based, one of the three central operations, contraction, addresses this concern (the other two deal with the incorporation of new information). Makinson has generalised this work by introducing the notion of a withdrawal operation. Underlying the account proffered by AGM is the idea of rational belief change. A belief change operation should be guided by certain principles or integrity constraints in order to characterise change by a rational agent. One of the most noted principles within the context of AGM is the Principle of Informational Economy. However, adoption of this principle in its purest form has been rejected by AGM leading to a more relaxed interpretation. In this paper, we argue that this weakening of the Principle of Informational Economy suggests that it is only one of a number of principles which should be taken into account. Furthermore, this weakening points toward a Principle of Indifference. This motivates the introduction of a belief removal operation that we call severe withdrawal. We provide rationality postulates for severe withdrawal and explore its relationship with AGM contraction. Moreover, we furnish possible worlds and epistemic entrenchment semantics for severe withdrawals. | |||||||||
| Keywords | belief revision | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesEduardo L. Fermé (1998). On the Logic of Theory Change: Contraction Without Recovery. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (2):127-137.
Oliver Schulte (1999). Minimal Belief Change and the Pareto Principle. Synthese 118 (3):329-361.
Thomas Andreas Meyer, Willem Adrian Labuschagne & Johannes Heidema (2000). Infobase Change: A First Approximation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (3):353-377.
Giacomo Bonanno (2008). Belief Revision in a Temporal Framework. In Krzysztof Apt & Robert van Rooij (eds.), New Perspectives on Games and Interaction. Amsterdam University Press.
Jake Chandler (2012). Transmission Failure, AGM-Style. Erkenntnis 78 (2):383-398.
Dongmo Zhang & Norman Foo (2001). Infinitary Belief Revision. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (6):525-570.
Natasha Alechina, Mark Jago & Brian Logan (2008). Preference-Based Belief Revision for Rule-Based Agents. Synthese 165 (2):159-177.
Thomas Meyer, Johannes Heidema, Willem Labuschagne & Louise Leenen (2002). Systematic Withdrawal. Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (5):415-443.
Mark Jago (2006). Resource-Bounded Belief Revision and Contraction. In P. Torroni, U. Endriss, M. Baldoni & A. Omicini (eds.), Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies III. Springer.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads8 ( #123,218 of 549,196 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,196 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
