Focusing vs. Belief Revision: A Fundamental Distinction When Dealing with Generic Knowledge
نویسندگان
چکیده
This paper advocates a basic distinction between two epistemic operations called focusing and revision, which can be defined in any, symbolic or numerical, representation framework which is rich enough for acknowledging the difference between factual evidence and generic knowledge. Revision amounts to modifying the generic knowledge when receiving new pieces of generic knowledge (or the factual evidence when obtaining more factual information), while focusing is just applying the generic knowledge to the reference class of situations which exactly corresponds to all the available evidence gathered on the case under consideration. Various settings are considered, upper and lower probabilities, belief functions, numerical possibility measures, ordinal possibility measures, conditional objects, nonmonotonic consequence
منابع مشابه
A conceptual framework for (iterated) revision, update, and nonmonotonic reasoning
This paper makes a foundational contribution to the discussions on the very nature of belief change operations. Belief revision and belief update are investigated within an abstract framework of epistemic states and (qualitative or quantitative) conditionals. Moreover, we distinguish between background knowledge and contextual information in order to analyse belief change more appropriately. Th...
متن کاملBeliefs Versus Knowledge: A Necessary Distinction for Explaining, Predicting, and Assessing Conceptual Change
Empirical research and theoretical treatments of conceptual change have paid little attention to the distinction between knowledge and belief. The distinction implies that conceptual change involves both knowledge acquisition and belief revision, and highlights the need to consider the reasons that beliefs are held. We argue that the effects of prior beliefs on conceptual learning depends upon ...
متن کاملLinking Iterated Belief Change Operations to Nonmonotonic Reasoning
The study of the exact relationships between belief revision and belief update, on one side, and belief revision and nonmonotonic reasoning, on the other, has raised considerable interest, but still, the picture is far from being complete. In this paper, we add some new details to this line of research by making a foundational contribution to the discussions on the very nature of belief change ...
متن کاملSteps Towards Commonsense-Driven Belief Revision in the Event Calculus
Recent extensions of the Event Calculus resulted in powerful formalisms, able to reason about a multitude of commonsense phenomena in causal domains, involving epistemic notions, functional fluents and probabilistic aspects, among others. Surprisingly, little attention has been paid to the problem of automatically revising (correcting) a Knowledge Base when an observation contradicts prediction...
متن کاملInvestigations into a Theory of Knowledge Base Revision
A fundamental problem in knowledge representation is how to revise knowledge when new, contradictory information is obtained. This paper formulates some desirable principles of knowledge revision, and investigates a new theory of knowledge revision that realizes these principles. This theory of revision can be explained at the knowledge level, in purely model-theoretic terms. A syntactic charac...
متن کامل