Studia Logica 73 (2):209 - 218 (2003)
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.
|Keywords||Philosophy Logic Mathematical Logic and Foundations Computational Linguistics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
The Game of Inquiry: The Interrogative Approach to Inquiry and Belief Revision Theory.Emmanuel J. Genot - 2009 - Synthese 171 (2):271-289.
Similar books and articles
Recovery From Natural and Man-Made Disasters As Capabilities Restoration and Enhancement.C. Murphy & P. Gardoni - 2008 - International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 3 (4):1-17.
Late Recovery From the Minimally Conscious State: Ethical and Policy Implications.Joseph J. Fins, Nicholas D. Schiff & Kathleen M. Foley - 2007 - Neurology 68 (4):304-307.
Changing the Theory of Theory Change: Towards a Computational Approach.Neil Tennant - 1994 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (3):865-897.
Simpson's Paradox: A Logically Benign, Empirically Treacherous Hydra.Gary Malinas & John Bigelow - 2001 - The Monist 84 (2):265 - 283.
A Note on Partial Meet Package Contraction.Jun Li - 1998 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (2):139-142.
Recovery and Epistemic Residue.Sven Ove Hansson - 1999 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 8 (4):421-428.
On the Logic of Theory Change: Contraction Without Recovery. [REVIEW]Eduardo L. Fermé - 1998 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (2):127-137.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #373,198 of 2,158,934 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #353,777 of 2,158,934 )
How can I increase my downloads?