Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    AGM belief revision can be extended to iterated revision ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Epistemic logic can express principles that AGM belief revision and non-monotonic logic cannot straightforwardly express

    AGM belief revision can be extended to iterated revision via Darwiche and Pearl's (1997) postulates, which encode higher-order doxastic states in epistemic entrenchment orderings.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Darwiche-Pearl postulates formally capture intuitions about rational change that AGM alone cannot express, like sensitivity to revision history.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Epistemic entrenchment orderings provide a mathematically tractable way to represent degrees of belief commitment across multiple revision steps.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Iterated revision is ubiquitous in reasoning; a theory must handle it to be adequate for modeling actual belief dynamics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic entrenchment orderings lack clear cognitive interpretation; it's unclear what agents actually track mentally about belief priorities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Darwiche-Pearl postulates add complexity without proven empirical validation that humans follow these specific higher-order constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Alternative frameworks (e.g., relative plausibility models) achieve iterated revision without presupposing entrenchment orderings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedConsciousness & Mind1 linked

    Related

    Alternative frameworks (e.g., relative plausibility models) achieve iterated rev...Darwiche-Pearl postulates formally capture intuitions about rational change that...Epistemic entrenchment orderings lack clear cognitive interpretation; it's uncle...Epistemic entrenchment orderings provide a mathematically tractable way to repre...
    +3 moreShow less
    Epistemic logic can express principles that AGM belief revision and non-monotoni...Iterated revision is ubiquitous in reasoning; a theory must handle it to be adeq...The Darwiche-Pearl postulates add complexity without proven empirical validation...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit