Natural revision is contingently-conditionalized revision

Natural revision seems so natural: it changes beliefs as little as possible to incorporate new information. Yet, some counterexamples show it wrong. It is so conservative that it never fully believes. It only believes in the current conditions. This is right in some cases and wrong in others. Which is which? The answer requires extending natural revision from simple formulae expressing universal truths (something holds) to conditionals expressing conditional truth (something holds in certain conditions). The extension is based on the basic principles natural revision follows, identified as minimal change, indifference and naivety: change beliefs as little as possible; equate the likeliness of scenarios by default; believe all until contradicted. The extension says that natural revision restricts changes to the current conditions. A comparison with an unrestricting revision shows what exactly the current conditions are. It is not what currently considered true if it contradicts the new information. It includes something more and more unlikely until the new information is at least possible

Accounting for Framing-Effects - an informational approach to intensionality in the Bolker-Jeffrey decision model

We suscribe to an account of framing-effects in decision theory in terms of an inference to a background informationa by the hearer when a speaker uses a certain frame while other equivalent frames were also available. This account was sketched by Craig McKenzie. We embed it in Bolker-Jeffrey decision model (or logic of action) - one main reason of this is that this latter model makes preferences bear on propositions. We can deduce a given anomaly or cognitive bias (namely framing-effects) in a formal decision theory. This leads to some philosophical considerations on the relationship between the rationality of preferences and the sensitivity to descriptions or labels of states of affairs (intensionality) in decision-making.information-processing and decision-making, framing-effects, intensionality, Bolker-Jeffrey

A 4-valued logic of strong conditional

How to say no less, no more about conditional than what is needed? From a logical analysis of necessary and sufficient conditions (Section 1), we argue that a stronger account of conditional can be obtained in two steps: firstly, by reminding its historical roots inside modal logic and set-theory (Section 2); secondly, by revising the meaning of logical values, thereby getting rid of the paradoxes of material implication whilst showing the bivalent roots of conditional as a speech-act based on affirmations and rejections (Section 3). Finally, the two main inference rules for conditional, viz. Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens, are reassessed through a broader definition of logical consequence that encompasses both a normal relation of truth propagation and a weaker relation of falsity non-propagation from premises to conclusion (Section 3)

In Defence of Extensional Evidence

Intensional evidence is any reason to accept a proposition that is not the truth values of the proposition accepted or, if it is a complex proposition, is not the truth values of its propositional contents. Extensional evidence is non-intensional evidence. Someone can accept a complex proposition, but deny its logical consequences when her acceptance is based on intensional evidence, while the logical consequences of the proposition presuppose the acceptance of extensional evidence, e.g., she can refuse the logical consequence of a proposition she accepts because she doesn’t know what are the truth-values of its propositional contents. This tension motivates counterexamples to the negation of conditionals, the propositional analysis of conditionals, hypothetical syllogism, contraposition and or-to-if. It is argued that these counterexamples are non-starters because they rely on a mix of intensionally based premises and extensionally based conclusions. Instead, a genuine counterexample to classical argumentative forms should present circumstances where an intuitively true and extensionally based premise leads to an intuitively false conclusion that is also extensionally based. The other point is that evidentiary concerns about intensionally based beliefs should be constrained by the truth conditions of propositions presented by classical logic, which are nothing more than coherence requirements in distributions of truth value. It is argued that this restriction also dissolves some known puzzles such as conditional stand-offs, Adams pair, the opt-out property, and the burglar’s puzzle