On having bad contractions, or: no room for recovery
作者:
Neil Tennant,
期刊:
Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics
(Taylor Available online 1997)
卷期:
Volume 7,
issue 1-2
页码: 241-266
ISSN:1166-3081
年代: 1997
DOI:10.1080/11663081.1997.10510907
出版商: Taylor & Francis Group
数据来源: Taylor
摘要:
The well-known AGM-theory-contraction and theory-revision, due to Alchourrón, Gärdenfors 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.
点击下载:
PDF (1359KB)
返 回