Avoiding Omnidoxasticity in Logics of Belief: A Reply to MacPherson

Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 36 (3):475-495 (1995)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In recent work MacPherson argues that the standard method of modeling belief logically, as a necessity operator in a modal logic, is doomed to fail. The problem with normal modal logics as logics of belief is that they treat believers as "ideal" in unrealistic ways (i.e., as omnidoxastic); however, similar problems re-emerge for candidate non-normal logics. The authors argue that logics used to model belief in artificial intelligence (AI) are also flawed in this way. But for AI systems, omnidoxasticity is impossible because of their finite nature, and this fact can be exploited to produce operational models of fallible belief. The relevance of this point to various philosophical views about belief is discussed

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,963

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
22 (#709,861)

6 months
5 (#640,860)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Knowledge and belief.Jaakko Hintikka - 1962 - Ithaca, N.Y.,: Cornell University Press.
.Daniel Kahneman & Shane Frederick - 2002 - Cambridge University Press.
Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning.Ronald Fagin & Joseph Y. Halpern - 1987 - Artificial Intelligence 34 (1):39-76.
Some admissible rules in nonnormal modal systems.Timothy Williamson - 1993 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 34 (3):378-400.

View all 7 references / Add more references