Advertisement

Dovetailing Belief Base Revision with Truth Approximation

  • Theo A. F. Kuipers
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 399)

Abstract

Gustavo Cevolani et al. (Erkenntnis 75(2):183–202, 2011) have shown that their account of verisimilitude of ‘conjunctive theories’ of a finite propositional language can be nicely linked to a variant of AGM belief set revision, viz. belief base revision, in the sense that the latter kind of revision is functional for truth approximation according to the conjunctive account. In the present chapter I offer a generalization of these ideas to the case of approaching any divide of a (finite or infinite) universe, allowing several interpretations, besides true (false) atomic propositions, notably nomic states (not) in equilibrium, nomic (im-)possibilities, (non-)instantiated ‘Q-predicates’ of a monadic language. It shows how and why approximation of ‘the true boundary’ takes place by belief base revision guided by evidence.

In the nomic (im-)possibilities interpretation this chapter essentially deals with a belief base revision perspective on basic and quantitative nomic truth approximation of two-sided theories in the sense of Chaps.  4 and  5. The previous chapter dealt with a belief set revision (i.e., AGM-) perspective on basic and refined nomic truth approximation of (one-sided) exclusion theories. This chapter will leave the challenge open of a belief base revision perspective on refined nomic truth approximation of two-sided theories, and, more generally, a belief base perspective on refined approximation of ‘the true boundary’ belonging to whatever interpretation.

Keywords

Belief base revision Conjunctive theories Generalization Approaching a divide Expansion Contraction Revision Truth approximation Truthlikeness Nomic interpretation Propositional interpretation Partition interpretation Monadic interpretation 

References

  1. Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory revision: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbol Logic, 50(2), 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cevolani, G., & Calandra, F. (2009). Approaching the truth via belief change in propositional languages. In M. Suárez, M. Dorato, & M. Rèdei (Eds.), Launch of the European philosophy of science association (EPSA epistemology and methodology of science, Vol. 1, pp. 47–62). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Cevolani, G., & Festa, R. Manuscript. Features of verisimilitude. Unpublished.Google Scholar
  4. Cevolani, G., & Festa, R. To appear. A partial consequence account of truthlikeness. To appear in a special issue of Synthese in honor of Gerhard Schurz.Google Scholar
  5. Cevolani, G., Crupi, V., & Festa, R. (2011). Verisimilitude and belief change for conjunctive theories. Erkenntnis, 75(2), 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cevolani, G., Festa, R., & Kuipers, T. (2013). Verisimilitude and belief change for nomic conjunctive theories. Synthese, 190, 3307–3324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Festa, R. (2007). Verisimilitude, qualitative theories, and statistical inferences. In S. Philström, P. Raatikainen, & M. Sintonen (Eds.), Approaching truth: Essays in honour of Ilkka Niiniluoto (pp. 143–178). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Hansson, S. O. (1999). A textbook of belief dynamics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansson, S. O. (2006). Logic of belief revision. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-belief-revision. Accessed 11 July 2017.
  10. Kuipers, T. (1982). Approaching descriptive and theoretical truth. Erkenntnis, 18(3), 343–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuipers, T. (2000). From instrumentalism to constructive realism. On some relations between confirmation, empirical progress, and truth approximation (Synthese library 287). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Kuipers, T. (2011). Basic and refined nomic truth approximation by evidence-guided belief revision in AGM-terms. Erkenntnis, 75(2), 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Niiniluoto, I. (1999). Belief revision and truthlikeness. In S. Halldén, B. Hansson, W. Rabinowicz, & N. -E. Sahlin (Eds.), Spinning ideas, electronic essays dedicated to Peter Gärdenfors on his fiftieth birthday. http://www.lucs.lu.se/spinning/.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theo A. F. Kuipers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Theoretical PhilosophyUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations