Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Counterexamples to Recovery and the Filtering Condition

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

David Makinson has argued that the compelling character of counterexamples to the Recovery Condition on contraction is due to an appeal to justificational structure. In “naked theories” where such structure is ignored or is not present, Recovery does apply. This note attempts to show that Makinson is mistaken on both counts. Recovery fails when no appeal is made to justificational structure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. AlchourrÓn, C., P. GÄrdenfors, and D. Makinson, ‘On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction Functions and Their Associated Revision Functions’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 50:510–30, 1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fuhrmann, A., ‘Theory Contraction through Base Contraction’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 20:175–203, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hansson, S. O., ‘Belief Contraction Without Recovery’, Studia Logica 50:251–60, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hansson, S. O. and E. J. Olsson, ‘Levi Contractions and AGM Contractions: A Comparison’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 36:103–19, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Levi, I., The Enterprise of Knowledge, Knopf, 1980; paperback, MIT Press, 1983.

  6. Levi, I., The Fixation of Belief and Its Undoing: Changing Beliefs through Inquiry, Cambridge University Press, 1991.

  7. Levi, I., For the Sake of the Argument, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

  8. Levi, I., ‘Contraction and Informational Value’, www.columbia.edu/~levi (unpublished manuscript).

  9. Makinson, D., ‘On the Status of the Postulate of Recovery in the Logic of Theory Change’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 16:383–94, 1987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Makinson, D., ‘On the Force of Some Apparent Counterexamples to Recovery’, in E. G. Valdés, W. Krawietz, G. H. von Wright and R. Zimmerling (eds), Normative Systems in Legal and Moral Theory, 1997.

  11. Rott, H., ‘Just Because: Taking Belief Bases Very Seriously’, in S. O. Hansson and W. Rabinowicz (eds), Logic for a Change: Essays Dedicated to Sten Lindström on the Occasion of his Fiftieth Birthday, Uppsala Prints and Preprints in Philosophy 9, 106–24, Department of Philosophy, University of Uppsala, 1995.

  12. Rott, H., and M. Pagnucco, ‘Severe Withdrawal (and Recovery)’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 29:501–47, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Columbia University, USA

    Isaac Levi

Authors
  1. Isaac Levi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Levi, I. Counterexamples to Recovery and the Filtering Condition. Studia Logica 73, 209–218 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022931929726

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022931929726

Search

Navigation