Hans Rott

In this paper we study changes of beliefs in a ranking-theoretic setting using non-extremal implausibility thresholds for belief. We represent implausibilities as ranks and introduce natural rank changes subject to a minimal change criterion. We show that many of the traditional AGM postulates for revision and contraction are preserved, except for the postulate of Preservation which is invalid. The diagnosis for belief contraction is similar, but not exactly the same. We demonstrate that the one-shot versions of both revision and contraction can be represented as revisions based on semiorders, but in two subtly different ways. We provide sets of postulates that are sound and complete in the sense that they allow us to prove representation theorems. We show that, and explain why, the classical duality between revision and contraction, as exhibited by the Levi and Harper identities, is partly broken by threshold-based belief changes. We also study the logic of iterated threshold-based revision and contraction. The traditional Darwiche-Pearl postulates for iterated revision continue to hold, as well as two additional postulates that characterize ranking-based revision as a restricted `improvement' operator. We investigate the dual notion of iterated threshold-based belief contraction and provide a new set of postulates for it, characterizing contraction as a restricted 'degrading' operator.

Today there is a wealth of fascinating studies of connexive logical systems. But sometimes it looks as if connexive logic is still in search of a convincing interpretation that explains in intuitive terms _why_ the connexive principles should be valid. In this paper I argue that difference-making conditionals as presented in Rott (_Review of Symbolic Logic_ 15, 2022) offer one principled way of interpreting connexive principles. From a philosophical point of view, the idea of difference-making demands full, unrestricted connexivity, because neither logical truths nor contradictions or other absurdities can ever ‘make a difference’ (i.e., be relevantly connected) to anything. However, difference-making conditionals have so far been only partially connexive. I show how the existing analysis of difference-making conditionals can be reshaped to obtain full connexivity. The classical AGM belief revision model is replaced by a conceivability-limited revision model that serves as the semantic base for the analysis. The key point of the latter is that the agent should never accept any absurdities.

This paper explores the connective ‘because’, based on the idea that ‘CbecauseA’ implies the acceptance/truth of the antecedentAas well as of the consequentC, and additionally that the antecedent makes a difference for the consequent. To capture this idea of difference-making a ‘relevantized’ version of the Ramsey Test for conditionals is employed that takes the antecedent to be relevant to the consequent in the following sense: a conditional is true/accepted in a state$$\sigma $$σjust in case (i) the consequent is true/accepted when$$\sigma $$σis revised by the antecedentand(ii) the consequent fails to be true/accepted when$$\sigma $$σis revised by the antecedent’s negation. To extend this to a semantics for ‘because’, we add that (iii) the antecedent and (iv) the consequent are accepted/true in the state$$\sigma $$σ. We get metaphysical or doxastic interpretations of these clauses, depending on what we mean by a model and a state. We introduce several semantics known from suppositional conditionals, which we reinterpret for difference-making conditionals and ‘because’. We present a minimal logic for ‘because’ sentences and show how it can be extended in ways that parallel the hierarchy of extensions of the logic of suppositional conditionals. We establish correspondence results between axioms for ‘because’ and properties of states, and prove that the specified logics are sound with respect to the semantics.

The dominant analyses of the logical form of natural-language conditionals take them to be “suppositional conditionals”. The latter are true or accepted if the consequent is true/accepted on the supposition of the antecedent. But this can happen although the antecedent is completely irrelevant (or even somewhat adverse) to the consequent. In natural-language conditionals, however, the antecedent is typically meant to support or be evidence for the consequent. The logical form of conditionals will thus be more complex than the suppositional theory would have it. Recently some suggestions as to what this logical form might look like have been made. In this paper, I critically discuss Vincenzo Crupi and Andrea Iacona’s account of “evidential conditionals”, including its recent amendments.

In natural language, conditionals are frequently used for giving explanations. Thus the antecedent of a conditional is typically understood as being connected to, being relevant for, or providing evidential support for the conditional's consequent. This aspect has not been adequately mirrored by the logics that are usually offered for the reasoning with conditionals: neither in the logic of the material conditional or the strict conditional, nor in the plethora of logics for suppositional conditionals that have been produced over the past 50 years. In this paper I survey some recent attempts to come to terms with the problem of encoding evidential support or relevance in the logic of conditionals. I present models in a qualitative-modal and in a quantitative-probabilistic setting. Focussing on some particular examples, I show that no perfect match between the two kinds of settings has been achieved yet.

This chapter gives an introduction to the problem of rational belief change and its formal modeling in qualitative logical theories. It first presents an outline of the approach based on rationality postulates and of the most important constructive approaches within the classical AGM model of belief revision. Then it gives the basic ideas of extensions of the classical model to iterated belief revision, to multiple revision and to two-dimensional belief change, to belief merging and to belief updates, as well as to default reasoning.

This paper offers a conceptual clarification of the German word "Zufall". I argue that talk of "Zufall" is systematically ambiguous. There are - at least - three different usages of the word in colloquial (and probably also in philosophical and scientific) discourse: it may refer to "genuine" metaphysical indeterminacy, or, in somewhat looser ways, to absolute unpredictability or to the coincidence of causal chains that are perceived as independent. The paper includes some historical remarks on Hume and on the falling roof tile example that can be traced back to Spinoza and Schopenhauer.

The concept of an evidential conditional If A then C that can be defined by the conjunction of A>C and ¬C>¬A, where > is a conditional of the kind introduced by Stalnaker and Lewis, has recently been studied in a series of papers by Vincenzo Crupi and Andrea Iacona. In this paper I argue that Crupi and Iacona’s central idea that contraposition captures the idea of evidential support cannot be maintained. I give examples showing that contraposition is neither necessary nor sufficient for a conditional’s antecedent supporting its consequent. Crupi and Iacona’s alternative account of evidential conditionals that is based on a probabilistic measure of evidential support cannot add to the credentials of their modal account, because both the theoretical role of contraposition and the resulting logic are different in this account.

Among the most important of Sten Lindström’s achievements in philosophy and logic is that he was the first researcher to realise that the theory of rational choice can be brought to bear in the domain of logic and reasoning. The new conception was that a sentence α is a consequence of a set of sentences Γ just in case α is true in all selected ("best", "most plausible") possible worlds in which all sentences in Γ are true (rather than in all possible worlds in which all sentences in Γ are true). And the selection of possible worlds should conform to the constraints on rational choices. Sten worked out this idea in stunning depth, detail and precision in his seminal paper "A semantic approach to nonmonotonic reasoning: Inference operations and choice." The paper was ready in draft form in April 1991 and presented in two talks later that year. It was included, in almost the same form, in the report series Uppsala Prints and Preprints in Philosophy in 1994, but it was never regularly published. The 2022 publication in Theoria seeks to compensate for this omission.

This article explores conditionals expressing that the antecedent makes a difference for the consequent. A ‘relevantised’ version of the Ramsey Test for conditionals is employed in the context of the classical theory of belief revision. The idea of this test is that the antecedent is relevant to the consequent in the following sense: a conditional is accepted just in case the consequent is accepted if the belief state is revised by the antecedent and the consequent fails to be accepted if the belief state is revised by the antecedent’s negation. The connective thus defined violates almost all of the traditional principles of conditional logic, but it obeys an interesting logic of its own. The article also gives the logic of an alternative version, the ‘Dependent Ramsey Test,’ according to which a conditional is accepted just in case the consequent is accepted if the belief state is revised by the antecedent and the consequent is rejected if the belief state is revised by the antecedent’s negation. This conditional is closely related to David Lewis’s counterfactual analysis of causation.

This note presents a very brief history of the observation that the probability of the material conditional A⊃B is in general different from, but cannot be less than, the conditional probability of B given A. The difference between the two probabilities is significant for the interpretation of conditionals and for the possibility of inductive probability. It can be quantitatively specified in so-called ‘excess laws’ for which Popper appears to have claimed priority. I argue that such a priority claim should be rejected and credit should instead be given, if to anyone, to Boole and Reichenbach instead.

The negation thesis concerning ignorance ("Nichtwissen") states that someone is ignorant about p if and only if she is does not know that p, or briefly, that ignorance is the negation of knowledge. We argue that there are no compelling arguments against the negation thesis. Even though, depending on the context of the conversation, the focus of an ascription of ignorance will be on one of the conditions for knowledge, all four types of ignorance are possible: ignorance due to falsity, ignorance due to lack of belief, ignorance due to lack of justification, and ignorance due to epistemic luck. Then we discuss the relevance of the distinction between known unknowns and unknown unknowns, and the surprising idea that every strong belief may be identified with an unknown unknown. A desire not to know can be present for a variety of reasons. It may be either symmetrical (not wanting to know whether p) or asymmetrical (not wanting to know that p if p should be true). We argue for the thesis that the desire not to know usually amounts to a desire to preserve the epistemic status quo. The potential applications of these distinctions to the alleged right not to know particularly in medical contexts are largely left open in this paper.

Wolfgang Spohn's theory of ranking functions is an elegant and powerful theory of the structure and dynamics of doxastic states. In two recent papers, Spohn has applied it to the analysis of conditionals, claiming to have presented a unified account of indicative and subjunctive (counterfactual) conditionals. I argue that his analysis fails to account for counterfactuals that refer to indirect causes. The strategy of taking the transitive closure that Spohn employs in the theory of causation is not available for counterfactuals. I have a close look at Spohn's treatment of the famous Oswald-Kennedy case in order to illustrate my points. I sketch an alternative view that seems to avoid the problems.

A theoretical term gets its meaning from a set of meaning-constitutive or 'analytic' sentences of the relevant theory. The meanings of theoretical terms may change when the theories change. After a discussion of Kant and Frege, I propose a broadly Quinean view of analyticity, without adopting Quine's meaning skepticism. A sentence of a given theory in a certain language is called analytic if revising the theory so that this sentence is lost entails the abandonment of the given linguistic (alternatively, of the given theoretical) framework. This solution to the problem of defining analyticity is rooted in intuitive judgements of the members of a linguistic community about the identity of languages or theories.

An idea going back to Plato’s Meno is that knowledge is stable. Recently, a seemingly stronger and more exciting thesis has been advanced, namely that rational belief is stable. I sketch two stability theories of knowledge and rational belief, and present an example intended to show that knowledge need not be stable and rational belief need not be stable either. The second claim does not follow from the first, even if we take knowledge to be a special kind of rational belief. ‘Stability’ is an ambiguous term that has an internally conditional structure.

This paper explores conditionals expressing that the antecedent makes a difference for the consequent. A 'relevantised' version of the Ramsey Test for conditionals is employed in the context of the classical theory of belief revision. The idea of this test is that the antecedent is relevant to the consequent in the following sense: a conditional is accepted just in case (i) the consequent is accepted if the belief state is revised by the antecedent and (ii) the consequent fails to be accepted if the belief state is revised by the antecedent's negation. The connective thus defined violates almost all of the traditional principles of conditional logic, but it obeys an interesting logic of its own. The paper also gives the logic of an alternative version, the `Dependent Ramsey Test', according to which a conditional is accepted just in case (i) the consequent is accepted if the belief state is revised by the antecedent and (ii) it is rejected (e.g., its negation is accepted) if the belief state is revised by the antecedent's negation. This conditional is closely related to David Lewis's counterfactual analysis of causation.

This paper is about the statics and dynamics of belief states that are represented by pairs consisting of an agent's credences (represented by a subjective probability measure) and her categorical beliefs (represented by a set of possible worlds). Regarding the static side, we argue that the latter proposition should be coherent with respect to the probability measure and that its probability should reach a certain threshold value. On the dynamic side, we advocate Jeffrey conditionalisation as the principal mode of changing one's belief state. This updating method fits the idea of the Lockean Thesis better than plain Bayesian conditionalisation, and it affords a flexible method for adding and withdrawing categorical beliefs. We show that it fails to satisfy the traditional principles of Inclusion and Preservation for belief revision and the principle of Recovery for belief withdrawals{, as well as the Levi and Harper identities. We take this to be a problem for the latter principles rather than for the idea of coherent belief change.

As part of the conference commemorating Theoria's 75th anniversary, a round table discussion on philosophy publishing was held in Bergendal, Sollentuna, Sweden, on 1 October 2010. Bengt Hansson was the chair, and the other participants were eight editors-in-chief of philosophy journals: Hans van Ditmarsch (Journal of Philosophical Logic), Pascal Engel (Dialectica), Sven Ove Hansson (Theoria), Vincent Hendricks (Synthese), Søren Holm (Journal of Medical Ethics), Pauline Jacobson (Linguistics and Philosophy), Anthonie Meijers (Philosophical Explorations), Henry S. Richardson (Ethics) and Hans Rott (Erkenntnis)

The contributions to the Special Issue on Multiple Belief Change, Iterated Belief Change and Preference Aggregation are divided into three parts. Four contributions are grouped under the heading "multiple belief change" (Part I, with authors M. Falappa, E. Fermé, G. Kern-Isberner, P. Peppas, M. Reis, and G. Simari), five contributions under the heading "iterated belief change" (Part II, with authors G. Bonanno, S.O. Hansson, A. Nayak, M. Orgun, R. Ramachandran, H. Rott, and E. Weydert). These papers do not only pick up the particular questions raised, but also extend and modify the framework of Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson. Part III deals with preference aggregation and consists of one contribution (by F. Herzberg and D. Eckert).

A number of seminal papers on the logic of belief change by Alchourrön, Gärden-fors, and Makinson have given rise to what is now known as the AGM paradigm. The present discussion note is a response to Neil Tennant's [1994], which aims at a critical appraisal of the AGM approach and the introduction of an alternative approach. We show that important parts of Tennants's critical remarks are based on misunderstandings or on lack of information. In the course of doing this, we attend to some central philosophical issues in the theory of belief change, such as the choice of a representation for belief states and the meaning of an idealized rational agent.

This paper is about the situation in which an author (writer or speaker) presents a deductively invalid argument, but the addressee aims at a charitable interpretation and has reason to assume that the author intends to present a valid argument. How can he go about interpreting the author’s reasoning as enthymematically valid? We suggest replacing the usual find-the-missing-premise approaches by an approach based on systematic efforts to ascribe a belief state to the author against the background of which the argument has to be evaluated. The suggested procedure includes rules for recording whether the author in fact accepts or denies the premises and the conclusion, as well as tests for enthymematic validity and strategies for revising belief state ascriptions. Different degrees of interpretive charity can be exercised. This is one reason why the interpretation or reconstruction of an enthymematic argument typically does not result in a unique outcome