论文信息 - On having bad contractions, or: no room for recovery

On having bad contractions, or: no room for recovery

ABSTRACT The well-known AGM-theory-contraction and theory-revision, due to Alchourron, Gardenfors and Makinson, relies heavily on the so-called postulate of recovery. This postulate is supposed to capture the requirement of “minimum mutilation”; but it does not. Recovery can be satisfied even when there is more mutilation than is necessary. Recovery also ensures that very often too little is given up in a contraction, in this paper I bring out clearly the deficiencies of the AGM-theory in these two regards, showing how it is doubly off-beam. I show that some of the most serious inadequacies of the AGM-theory derive from early claims in some of its founding contributions, claims that have not been seriously questioned within the tradition since. The upshot of these investigations is that recovery cannot, and should not, be recovered. Theory contraction is hysteretic. Whether the AGM-theory can now recover is a good question.

Neil Tennant

[1] André Fuhrmann,et al. Theory contraction through base contraction , 1991, J. Philos. Log..

[2] Peter Gärdenfors,et al. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[3] Sven Ove Hansson,et al. How Not to Change the Theory of Theory Change: A Reply to Tennant , 1995, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[4] Lennart Åqvist,et al. Philosophical Essays Dedicated to Lennart Åqvist on His Fiftieth Birthday , 1982 .

[5] Sven Ove Hansson,et al. Belief contraction without recovery , 1991, Stud Logica.

[6] David Makinson,et al. On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change , 1987, J. Philos. Log..

[7] David Makinson,et al. On the logic of theory change: Safe contraction , 1985, Stud Logica.

[8] Neil Tennant,et al. Changing the Theory of Theory Change: Towards a Computational Approach , 1994, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.