Changing the theory of theory change: Reply to my critics

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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/bjps/48.4.569
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,308
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
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

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
266 ( #12,765 of 2,180,132 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #304,923 of 2,180,132 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums