Changing the Theory of Theory Change: Towards a Computational Approach

The Theory of theory change has contraction and revision as its central notions. Of these, contraction is the more fundamental. The best-known theory, due to Alchourrón, Gärdenfors, and Makinson, is based on a few central postulates. The most fundamental of these is the principle of recovery: if one contracts a theory with respect to a sentence, and then adds that sentence back again, one recovers the whole theory. Recovery is demonstrably false. This paper shows why, and investigates how one can nevertheless characterize contraction in a theoretically fruitful way. The theory proposed lends itself to implementation, which in turn could yield new theoretical insights. The Main proposal is a ‘staining algorithm’ which identifies which sentences to reject when contracting a theory. The algorithm requires one to be clear about the structure of reasons one has for including sentences within one's theory.

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

[2]  L. Ross,et al.  Judgment under uncertainty: Shortcomings in the attribution process: On the origins and maintenance of erroneous social assessments , 1982 .

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

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

[5]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  An Assumption-Based TMS , 1987, Artif. Intell..

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

[7]  João P. Martins Computational issues in belief revision , 1989, The Logic of Theory Change.

[8]  Neil Tennant,et al.  The transmission of truth and the transitivity of deduction , 1994 .

[9]  Jon Doyle,et al.  A Truth Maintenance System , 1979, Artif. Intell..

[10]  André Fuhrmann,et al.  The Logic of Theory Change , 1991, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[11]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in Flux , 1988 .

[12]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  The Dynamics of Belief Systems : Foundations vs . Coherence Theories , 1990 .

[13]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems , 1990, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[14]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Epistemic importance and minimal changes of belief , 1984 .

[15]  Neil Tennant,et al.  Perfect validity, entailment and paraconsistency , 1984 .

[16]  Isaac Levi Subjunctives, dispositions and chances , 1977 .

[17]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Revisions of Knowledge Systems Using Epistemic Entrenchment , 1988, TARK.

[18]  W. Salmon,et al.  Knowledge in Flux , 1991 .

[19]  Isaac Levi,et al.  The Enterprise Of Knowledge , 1980 .