Belief Change as Propositional Update

@article{Elio1997BeliefCA,
  title={Belief Change as Propositional Update},
  author={Ren{\'e}e Elio and Francis Jeffry Pelletier},
  journal={Cogn. Sci.},
  year={1997},
  volume={21},
  pages={419-460}
}
This study examines the problem of belief revision, defined as deciding which of several initially accepted sentences to disbelieve, when new information presents a logical inconsistency with the initial set. In the first three experiments, the initial sentence set included a conditional sentence, a non-conditional (ground) sentence, and an inferred conclusion drawn from the first two. The new information contradicted the inferred conclusion. Results indicated that conditional sentences were… 

Tables from this paper

Belief revision and uncertain reasoning
When a new piece of information contradicts a currently held belief, one has to modify the set of beliefs in order to restore its consistency. In the case where it is necessary to give up a belief,
Spatial belief revision
Belief revision is the process of changing one's beliefs when a newly acquired fact contradicts the existing belief set. Psychological research on belief revision mostly used conditional reasoning
Counterfactual Reasoning: resolving inconsistency before your eyes
Belief revision has invariably been studied with abstract relationships using paper-and-pencil tasks. The present study asks whether people employ the same procedures in revising their beliefs when
Issues in Reasoning about Iffy Propositions: The Secondary Inference Model of Revising Conditional Beliefs and Inferences
Issues in Reasoning about Iffy propositions: The Secondary Inference Model of Revising Conditional Beliefs and Inferences Walter Schroyens (Walter.Schroyens@psy.kuleuven.ac.be), and Kristien
The Development of Counterfactual Reasoning in Belief Revision
The present study examines how children revise beliefs in the face of a new piece of information that they must accept as true and under what circumstances their belief-revision processes differ from
Deductive reasoning from uncertain conditionals.
TLDR
A pragmatic account of how the tacit conditions mentioned earlier are treated in plausible reasoning is presented and an application of the same account to the Suppression Effect is proposed and compared with the counter-example availability explanation.
The Need to Explain
TLDR
The hypothesis predicts that individuals should spontaneously create explanations of inconsistencies rather than refute one of the assertions and that they should rate explanations as more probable than refutations.
Changing your mind
TLDR
An alternative hypothesis according to which individuals seek to resolve inconsistencies by explaining their origins is proposed, which contravene minimalism but support the explanatory hypothesis.
Belief revision and way-finding
TLDR
An approach for linking the two fields and assessing belief revision as it occurs in the process of way-finding is introduced and the results of two experiments show that a participant’s choice of route is affected by differences in the structure of the relevant initial instruction.
Reasoning from inconsistency to consistency.
TLDR
A theory of how individuals reason from inconsistency to consistency is presented, based on 3 main principles: individuals try to construct a single mental model of a possibility that satisfies a current set of propositions, and if the task is impossible, they infer that the set is inconsistent.
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 118 REFERENCES
What to Believe When Inferences are Contradicted: The
Simple belief-revision tasks were defined by a giving subjects a conditional premise, (p—>q), a categorical premise, (p, for a modus-ponens belief-set, or ~q, for a modus tollens belief-set), and the
Belief Revision and Nonmonotonic Logic: Two Sides of the Same Coin? (Abstract)
TLDR
It is shown that it is possible to translate concepts, models, and results from one area to the other, and this will hopefully lead to a cross-fertilization of the two research areas.
Knowledge, belief, and strategic interaction: The dynamics of belief systems: Foundations versus coherence theories
1. The PROBLEM OF belief revision In this article I want to discuss some philosophical problems one encounters when trying to model the dynamics of epistemic states. Apart from being of interest in
Diagnostic reasoning with circumstantial evidence
Belief Revision: Reason maintenance and belief revision: Foundations versus coherence theories
Recent years have seen considerable work on two approaches to belief revision: the so-called foundations and coherence approaches. The foundations approach supposes that a rational agent derives its
Deduction from Uncertain Premises
We investigate how the perceived uncertainty of a conditional affects a person's choice of conclusion. We use a novel procedure to introduce uncertainty by manipulating the conditional probability of
From Statistics to Beliefs
TLDR
An intelligent agent uses known facts, including statistical knowledge, to assign degrees of belief to assertions it is uncertain about, and three principled techniques for doing this are investigated, all of which are applications of the principle of indifference.
Belief Revision and Default Reasoning: Syntax-Based Approaches
TLDR
It is shown that a general form of syntax-based belief revision corresponds to a special kind of partial meet revision in the sense of variants of logics for default reasoning, which turns out to be located at the lower end of the polynomial hierarchy.
An inquiry into computer understanding
TLDR
This paper shows that the difficulties McDermott described are a result of insisting on using logic as the language of commonsense reasoning, and if (Bayesian) probability is used, none of the technical difficulties found in using logic arise.
Constructive belief and rational representation
TLDR
It is argued that a more illuminating view is that belief is the result of rational representation, and in this theory, the agent obtains its constructive beliefs by using its manifest beliefs and preferences to rationally choose the most useful conclusions indicated by the manifest beliefs.
...
...