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
    Epistemic logic can express the interaction between knowl... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Epistemic logic can express the interaction between knowledge and belief in ways that AGM and non-monotonic logic cannot

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Epistemic logic can express the principle that everything known is also believed (Kp → Bp) using distinct knowledge and belief operators
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.AGM belief revision and non-monotonic logic do not have separate operators for knowledge and belief, so they cannot easily express relationships between the two
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Non-monotonic logic can simulate the K→B principle via default rules: 'if Kp, then by default Bp', achieving equivalent expressive power without distinct operators.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The absence of syntactically distinct operators does not entail inability to express a relationship, only that it is expressed at the meta-level rather than object-level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.AGM revision theory, extended by Gardenförs and Makinson's epistemic entrenchment framework, distinguishes between firmly held beliefs and defeasible ones, approximating knowledge/belief stratification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If AGM can structurally differentiate epistemic states by entrenchment ordering, the claim that it cannot express knowledge-belief interaction conflates syntactic expressibility with representational capacity.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Related

    AGM belief revision and non-monotonic logic do not have separate operators for k...AGM revision theory, extended by Gardenförs and Makinson's epistemic entrenchmen...Epistemic logic can express the principle that everything known is also believed...If AGM can structurally differentiate epistemic states by entrenchment ordering,...
    +2 moreShow less
    Non-monotonic logic can simulate the K→B principle via default rules: 'if Kp, th...The absence of syntactically distinct operators does not entail inability to exp...

    Similar

    AGM belief revision and non-monotonic logic do not have separate opera...87%Epistemic logic can express principles that AGM belief revision and no...87%Epistemic logic can express the principle that everything known is als...87%Epistemic logic is a suitable formal framework for representing episte...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: formal-belief
    View source passageHide passage
    Epistemic logic, which in its modern formulation is typically traced to von Wright (1951) and Hintikka (1962), is a formal framework designed to foreground these matters. For an influential introductory text, see Fagin et al. (1995). The formal language of epistemic logic extends that of propositional logic with epistemic operators \({\bf B}_a \phi\) and \({\bf K}_a \phi\), pronounced respectively as ‘agent \(a\) believes that \(\phi\),’ and ‘agent \(a\) knows that \(\phi.\)’ When only one agent
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit