Revising the Logic of Logical Revision
نویسنده
چکیده
Michael Dummett’s realism debate is a semantic dispute about the kind of truth conditions had by a given class of sentences. According to his semantic realist, the truth conditions are potentially verification-transcendent in that they may obtain (or not) despite the fact that we may be forever unable to recognize whether they obtain. According to Dummett’s semantic anti-realist, the truth conditions are of a different sort. Essentially, for the anti-realist, that the truth conditions obtain (whenever they do) is a matter that is always recognizable by us in principle. On this view, truth cannot outrun all possible human knowledge. Unsurprisingly, the outcome of the debate is sometimes said to hinge on whether all truths are knowable.1 More carefully the point of contention is the following knowability principle:
منابع مشابه
A Three{tiered Conndence Model for Revising Logical Theories
The task of theory revision in Inductive Logic Programming is to correct the current theory when contradictions with new examples arise. Conndence models are used to assess and compare the diierent alternatives of revising a theory in order to choose the best revision. In this paper, we propose an augmentation of the two{tiered conndence model of MOBAL/KRT that allows to combine diierent heuris...
متن کاملThe Knowability Paradox in the light of a Logic for Pragmatics
The Knowability Paradox is a logical argument showing that if all truths are knowable in principle, then all truths are, in fact, known. Many strategies have been suggested in order to avoid the paradoxical conclusion. A family of solutions – called logical revision – has been proposed to solve the paradox, revising the logic underneath, with an intuitionistic revision included. In this paper, ...
متن کاملA Kernel Revision Operator for Terminologies
In this paper, we propose a new method for revising terminologies in description logic-based ontologies. Our revision method is a reformulation of the kernel revision operator in belief revision. We first define our revision operator for terminologies in terms of MIPS (minimal incoherence-preserving sub-terminologies), and we show that it satisfies some desirable logical properties. Second, two...
متن کاملModel-based Revision Operators for Terminologies in Description Logics
The problem of revising an ontology consistently is closely related to the problem of belief revision which has been widely discussed in the literature. Some syntax-based belief revision operators have been adapted to revise ontologies in Description Logics (DLs). However, these operators remove the whole axioms to resolve logical contradictions and thus are not fine-grained. In this paper, we ...
متن کاملThe Revision of Logical Laws
Silver Professor and Professor of Philosophy Can there be rational reasons for revising our most fundamental logical rules (for instance, the rule of inferring from A to A or B; or the rule of inferring from A or B and not A to B)? I think there can. Nonetheless, the supposition that there can be rational reasons for such revisions gives rise to a wide variety of puzzles, which have led some ph...
متن کاملThe Ontology Revision
An ontology consists of a set of concepts, a set of constraints imposing on instances of concepts, and the subsumption relation. It is assumed that an ontology is a tree under the subsumption relation between concepts. To preserve structural properties of ontologies, the ontology revision is not only contracting ontologies by discarding statements inconsistent with a revising statement, but als...
متن کامل