Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Systematic withdrawal.Thomas Meyer, Johannes Heidema, Willem Labuschagne & Louise Leenen - 2002 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (5):415-443.
    Although AGM theory contraction (Alchourrón et al., 1985; Alchourrón and Makinson, 1985) occupies a central position in the literature on belief change, there is one aspect about it that has created a fair amount of controversy. It involves the inclusion of the postulate known as Recovery. As a result, a number of alternatives to AGM theory contraction have been proposed that do not always satisfy the Recovery postulate (Levi, 1991, 1998; Hansson and Olsson, 1995; Fermé, 1998; Fermé and Rodriguez, 1998; (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Equilibria in social belief removal.Richard Booth & Thomas Meyer - 2010 - Synthese 177 (1):97 - 123.
    In studies of multi-agent interaction, especially in game theory, the notion of equilibrium often plays a prominent role. A typical scenario for the belief merging problem is one in which several agents pool their beliefs together to form a consistent "group" picture of the world. The aim of this paper is to define and study new notions of equilibria in belief merging. To do so, we assume the agents arrive at consistency via the use of a social belief removal function, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Counterexamples to Recovery and the Filtering Condition.Isaac Levi - 2003 - Studia Logica 73 (2):209-218.
    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.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Recovery and epistemic residue.Sven Ove Hansson - 1999 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 8 (4):421-428.
    Two recent defences of the recovery postulate for contraction of belief sets are analyzed. It is concluded that recovery is defensible as a by-product of a formalization that is idealized in the sense of being simplified for the sake of clarity. However, recovery does not seem to be a required feature of the doxastic behaviour of ideal (perfectly rational) agents. It is reasonable to expect that there should be epistemic residues (remnants of rejected beliefs), but not that these should always (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations