Changing the theory of theory change: Reply to my critics

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (4):569-586 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Changing the Theory of Theory Change: Towards a Computational Approach’ (Tennant [1994]; henceforth CTTC) claimed that the AGM postulate of recovery is false, and that AGM contractions of theories can be more than minimally mutilating. It also described an alternative, computational method for contracting theories, called the Staining Algorithm. Makinson [1995] and Hansson and Rott [1995] criticized CTTC's arguments against AGM-theory, and its specific proposals for an alternative, computational approach. This paper replies as comprehensively as space allows.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
331 (#55,075)

6 months
1 (#1,028,709)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Neil Tennant
Ohio State University

Citations of this work

On having bad contractions, or: no room for recovery.Neil Tennant - 1997 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7 (1-2):241-266.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Theory contraction through base contraction.André Fuhrmann - 1991 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 20 (2):175 - 203.
On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change.David Makinson - 1987 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 16 (4):383 - 394.
Reversing the Levi identity.Sven Ove Hansson - 1993 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 22 (6):637 - 669.
Theory contraction and base contraction unified.Sven Ove Hansson - 1993 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 58 (2):602-625.
Foundational belief change.Abhaya C. Nayak - 1994 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 23 (5):495 - 533.

View all 8 references / Add more references