Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-dvtzq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T13:54:24.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific discovery based on belief revision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Eric Martin  and
Daniel Osherson
Eric Martin
Affiliation:
Lamii, B. P. 806, F-74016 Annecy Cedex, France E-mail: martin@esia.univ-savoie.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scientific inquiry is represented as a process of rational hypothesis revision in the face of data. For the concept of rationality, we rely on the theory of belief dynamics as developed in [5, 9]. Among other things, it is shown that if belief states are left unclosed under deductive logic then scientific theories can be expanded in a uniform, consistent fashion that allows inquiry to proceed by any method of hypothesis revision based on “kernel” contraction. In contrast, if belief states are closed under logic, then no such expansion is possible.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 1352 - 1370
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1]Alchourrón, C. E., Gärdenfors, P., and Makinson, D., On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions, this Journal, vol. 50 (1985), pp. 510–530.Google Scholar
[2]Alchourrón, C. E. and Makinson, D., On the logic of theory change: Safe contraction, Studia Logica, vol. 44 (1985), pp. 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Boutilier, C., Iterated revision and minimal change of conditional beliefs, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 25 (1996), pp. 263–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Fuhrmann, A., Theory contraction through base contraction, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 20 (1991), pp. 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Gärdenfors, P., Knowledge in flux: Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1988.Google Scholar
[6]Hansson, S. O., A dyadic representation of belief, Belief revision (Gärdenfors, P., editor), Cambridge University Press, New York, 1992, pp. 89–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Hansson, S. O., Changes of disjunctively closed bases, Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, vol. 2 (1993), pp. 225–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Hansson, S. O., Reversing the Levi identity, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 22 (1993), no. 6, pp. 637–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Hansson, S. O., Kernel contraction, this Journal, vol. 59 (1994), no. 3, pp. 845–859.Google Scholar
[10]Kelly, K. T., The logic of reliable inquiry, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Kelly, K. T., Schulte, O., and Hendricks, V., Reliable belief revision, Proceedings of the X International Joint Congress for Logic, Methodology and the Philosophy of Science, Florence, Italy, 1995.Google Scholar
[12]Levi, I., The enterprise of knowledge, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1980.Google Scholar
[13]Martin, E. and Osherson, D. N., Elements of scientific inquiry, to appear.Google Scholar
[14]Mendelson, E., Introduction to mathematical logic, Van Nostrand, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
[15]Nayak, A. C., Foundational belief change, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 23 (1994), no. 5, pp. 495–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Nayak, A. C., Iterated belief change based on epistemic entrenchment, Erkenntnis, vol. 41 (1994), pp. 353–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Osherson, D., Stob, M., and Weinstein, S., A universal inductive inference machine, this Journal, vol. 56 (1991), no. 2, pp. 661–672.Google Scholar
[18]Osherson, D. and Weinstein, S., Identification in the limit of first-order structures, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 15 (1986), pp. 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Osherson, D., Weinstein, S., de Jongh, D., and Martin, E., A first-order framework for learning, Handbook of logic and language (ter Meulen, Alice and van Benthem, J., editors), Elsevier Science Publishers, New York, 1997.Google Scholar
[20]Rott, H., Belief contraction in the context of the general theory of rational choice, this Journal, vol. 58 (1993), no. 4, pp. 1426–1450.Google Scholar