Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:58:42.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Logic of Belief Persistence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Pierpaolo Battigalli  and
Giacomo Bonanno
Pierpaolo Battigalli
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Giacomo Bonanno
Affiliation:
University of California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The principle of belief persistence, or conservativity principle, states that ‘When changing beliefs in response to new evidence, you should continue to believe as many of the old beliefs as possible’ (Harman, 1986, p. 46). In particular, this means that if an individual gets new information, she has to accommodate it in her new belief set (the set of propositions she believes), and, if the new information is not inconsistent with the old belief set, then (1) the individual has to maintain all the beliefs she previously had and (2) the change should be minimal in the sense that every proposition in the new belief set must be deducible from the union of the old belief set and the new information (see, e.g., Gärdenfors, 1988; Stalnaker, 1984). We focus on this minimal notion of belief persistence and characterize it both semantically and syntactically.

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , April 1997 , pp. 39 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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.)

References

Alchourrón, Carlos, Gärdenfors, Peter and Makinson, David. 1985. ‘On the logic of theory change: partial meet functions for contraction and revision’. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50:510–30Google Scholar
Brown, P. M. 1976. ‘Conditionalization and expected utility’. Philosophy of Science, 43:415–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chellas, Brian. 1984. Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Dekel, Eddie and Gul, Faruk. 1996. ‘Rationality and knowledge in game theory’, mimeo, Northwestern University. (Forthcoming in Advances in Economic Theory, Seventh World Congress. Kreps, D. M. and Wallis, K. F. (eds.). Cambridge University Press.)Google Scholar
Friedman, Neil and Halpern, Joseph. 1995. ‘Modeling belief in dynamic systems. Part I: foundations’, RJ 9965 (87924), IBM Research DivisionGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, Peter. 1988. Knowledge In Flux. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, Peter and Makinson, David. 1988. ‘Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment’. In Proceedings of the Second TARK Conference, pp. 83–95, Vardi, M. (ed.). Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
Geanakoplos, John. 1994. ‘Common knowledge’. In Handbook Of Game Theory, Vol. 2, pp. 1437–96. Aumann, Robert and Hart, Sergiu (eds.). ElsevierGoogle Scholar
Halpern, Joseph. 1991. ‘The relationship between knowledge, belief and certainty’. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 4:301–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1986. Change In View: Principles Of Reasoning. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1962. Knowledge And Belief. Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
van der Hoek, Wiebe. 1993. ‘Systems for knowledge and belief’, Journal of Logic and Computation, 3:173–95Google Scholar
van der Hoek, Wiebe and Meyer, J.-J. Ch.. 1995. Epistemic Logic For Artificial Intelligence And Computer Science. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Howson, Colin and Urbach, Peter. 1989. Scientific Reasoning. Open CourtGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, Richard. 1983. The Logic Of Decision, 2nd edn.University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Kraus, Sarit and Lehmann, Danile. 1988. ‘Knowledge, belief and time’. Theoretical Computer Science, 58:155–74Google Scholar
Lenzen, Wolfgang. 1978. ‘Recent work in epistemic logic’. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 30:1–220Google Scholar
Maher, Patrick. 1993. Betting On Theories. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Mongin, Philippe. 1994. ‘Some connections between epistemic logic and the theory of nonadditive probability’. In Patrick Suppes: Scientific Philosopher, Vol. 1, pp. 135–71. Humphreys, P. (ed.). KluwerGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Martin and Rubinstein, Ariel. 1994. A Course In Game Theory. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Piccione, Michele and Rubinstein, Ariel. 1995. ‘On the interpretation of decision problems with imperfect recall’. Games and Economic Behavior, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1984. Inquiry. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. 1973. ‘Conditionalization and observation’. Synthese, 26:218–58Google Scholar