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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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