The Logic of Justified Belief Change, Soft Evidence and Defeasible Knowledge
نویسندگان
چکیده
We present a logic for reasoning about the evidence-based knowledge and beliefs and the evidential dynamics of non-logically-omniscient agents. We do this by adapting key tools and techniques from Dynamic Epistemic Logic, Justification Logic, and Belief Revision so as to provide a lightweight, yet finegrained approach that characterizes well-known epistemic and doxastic attitudes in terms of the evidential reasoning that justifies these attitudes. We then add the dynamic operations of evidence introduction, evidence-based inference, strong acceptance of new evidence (evidential “upgrade”), and irrevocable acceptance of additional evidence (evidential “update”). We exemplify our theory by providing a formal dynamic account of Lehrer’s well-known Gettier-type scenario involving the famous Ferrari and the infamous Messrs. Nogot and Havit.
منابع مشابه
The logic of justified belief, explicit knowledge, and conclusive evidence
We present a complete, decidable logic for reasoning about a notion of completely trustworthy (“conclusive”) evidence and its relations to justifiable (implicit) belief and knowledge, as well as to their explicit justifications. This logic makes use of a number of evidence-related notions such as availability, admissibility, and “goodness” of a piece of evidence, and is based on an innovative m...
متن کاملBelief as Defeasible Knowledge
We investigate the relation between the notions of knowledge and belief. Contrary to the well-known slogan about knowledge being “justified, true belief,” we propose that belief be viewed as defeasible knowledge. SpecifIcally, we offer a definition of belief as knowledge-relative-toassumptions, and tie the definition to the notion of nonmonotonicity. Our definition has several advantages. First...
متن کاملA Preliminary Reification of Argument Theory Change
In this article we introduce the basics for understanding the mechanisms of Argument Theory Change. In particular we reify it using Defeasible Logic Programming. In this formalism, knowledge bases are represented through defeasible logic programs. The main change operation we define over a defeasible logic program is a special kind of revision that inserts a new argument and then modifies the r...
متن کاملDynamics of knowledge in DeLP through Argument Theory Change
1 This article is devoted to the study of methods to change defeasible logic programs (de.l.p.s) which are the knowledge bases used by the Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) interpreter. DeLP is an argumentation formalism that allows to reason over potentially inconsistent de.l.p.s. Argument Theory Change (ATC) studies certain aspects of belief revision in order to make them suitable for abstr...
متن کاملReasoning about knowledge using defeasible logic
In this paper, the Carneades argumentation system is extended to represent a procedural view of inquiry in which evidence is marshalled to support or defeat claims to knowledge. The model is a sequence of moves in a collaborative group inquiry in which parties take turns making assertions about what is known or not known, putting forward evidence to support them, and subjecting these moves to c...
متن کامل