Abstract
This paper develops a probabilistic model of belief change under interpretation shifts, in the context of a problem case from dynamic epistemic logic. Van Benthem [4] has shown that a particular kind of belief change, typical for dynamic epistemic logic, cannot be modelled by standard Bayesian conditioning. I argue that the problems described by van Benthem come about because the belief change alters the semantics in which the change is supposed to be modelled: the new information induces a shift in the interpretation of the sentences. In this paper I show that interpretation shifts can be modeled in terms of updating by conditioning. The model derives from the knowledge structures developed by Fagin et al [8], and hinges on a distinction between the propositional and informational content of sentences. Finally, I show that Dempster-Shafer theory provides the appropriate probability kinematics for the model.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arlo-Costa, H., and A. P. Pedersen, Social Norms, Rational Choice and Belief Change. Belief Revision meets Philosophy of Science, Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science Series, Vol. 21, E. J. Olsson and S. Enqvist (eds.), Springer, 2010.
Baltag, A., L. S. Moss, and S. Solecki, The logic of public announcements, common knowledge, and private suspicions. TARK ’98: Proceedings of the 7th conference on Theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge, Morgan Kaufman, 1998, pp. 43–56.
Baltag, A., and S. Smets, A Qualitative Theory of Dynamic Interactive Belief Revision. In G. Bonanno, W. van der Hoek, and M. Wooldridge (eds.), Texts in Logic and Games, Vol. 3, Amsterdam University Press, 2008, pp. 9–58.
van Benthem J.F.A.K.: Conditional Probability meets Update Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12, 409–421 (2003)
van Benthem J.F.A.K., Gerbrandy J., Kooi B.P.: Dynamic Update with Probabilities. Studia Logica 93(1), 67–93 (2009)
Brandenburger A.: The Power of Paradox. International Journal of Game Theory 35, 465–492 (2007)
van Ditmarsch H., van der Hoek W., Kooi B.P.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Springer, Dordrecht (2007)
Fagin R., Halpern J.Y., Vardi M.Y.: A model-theoretic analysis of knowledge. Journal of the ACM 38(2), 382–428 (1991)
van Fraassen B.C.: Laws and Symmetry. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1989)
Gerbrandy J., Groeneveld W.: Reasoning about information change. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 6, 147–169 (1997)
Gerbrandy, J., Bisimulations on Planet Kripke. ILLC dissertation series (DS-1999-01), University of Amsterdam, 1999.
Groeneveld, W., Logical Investigations into Dynamic Semantics. ILLC dissertation series (DS-1995-18), University of Amsterdam, 1995.
Haenni R., Romeijn J.W., Wheeler G., Williamson J.: Probabilistic Logics and Probabilistic Networks. Springer, Synthese Library (2010)
Halpern J.Y.: Reasoning about Uncertainty. MIT Press, Cambridge (MA) (2003)
Jeffrey R.C.: Probability and the Art of Judgement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)
Kooi B.P.: Probabilistic Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12(4), 381–408 (2003)
Lewis D.: Probabilities of Conditionals and Conditional Probabilities. Philosophical Review 85(3), 297–315 (1976)
Maher P.: Betting on Theories. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)
Renardel de Lavalette G.R.: Changing modalities. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(2), 253–278 (2004)
Rott H.: A Counterexample to Six Fundamental Principles of Belief Formation. Synthese 139(2), 225–240 (2004)
Shafer G.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Boston (1976)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Romeijn, JW. Conditioning and Interpretation Shifts. Stud Logica 100, 583–606 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-012-9415-x
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-012-9415-x