2 research outputs found
Belief revision and computational argumentation: a critical comparison
This paper aims at comparing and relating belief revision and argumentation as
approaches to model reasoning processes. Referring to some prominent literature
references in both fields, we will discuss their (implicit or explicit) assumptions on the
modeled processes and hence commonalities and differences in the forms of reason ing they are suitable to deal with. The intended contribution is on one hand assessing
the (not fully explored yet) relationships between two lively research fields in the
broad area of defeasible reasoning and on the other hand pointing out open issues and
potential directions for future research.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio
Belief Dynamics: (Epistemo)logical Investigations
C.S. Peirce's and Isaac Levi's accounts of the belief-doubt-belief model are discussed and evaluated. It is argued that the contemporary study of belief change has metamorphosed into a branch of philosophical logic where empirical considerations have become obsolete. A case is made for reformulations of belief change systems that do allow for empirical tests. Last, a belief change system is presented that (1) uses finite representations of information, (2) can adequately deal with inconsistencies, (3) has finite operations of change, (4) can do without extra-logical elements, and (5) only licenses consistent beliefs