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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that 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.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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