Summary Outline By: Ma. Keala Mae M.

Bleza (2006-78725)
PHL 250 – Theory of Knowledge
Dr. Ciriaco Sayson

Positive Versus Negative Undermining in Belief Revision

2 Competing Theories of Belief Revision

1. Foundations Theory of Belief Revision
2. Coherence Theory of Belief Revision
*raise a new issue aside from the usual theories of jutification – undermine
*probable theory that we use when we change views

Theory Justification Revision

Foundations (ought) – theory Justification that relies on a 1. Subtracting any of ones' belief
that seems to be in accordance foundational belief that does not that do not now have a
with our intuition – asymmetrical need to depend on other belief to satisfactory justification
be justified; intrinsically 2. Adding new beliefs that either
justifiable need no justification or are
justified on the basis of other
justified beliefs
Coherence (is) – reality – what Does not require justification; Should involve minimal changes
people actually do – symmetrical how the beliefs fit in in one's beliefs in a way that
– network of explanantions sufficiently increases over all
coherence

Karen's Aptitude Test

 results show that she has a high aptitude for Science and Music but little for Philosophy and
History
 her grades are high in Physics and History but low for Music and Philosophy
Conclusions:
1. The reported scores of the aptitude exams are accurate.
2. She has an aptitude for Science and Music but no aptitude for Philosophy and History
3. Her history course must be an easy one.
4. She did not worked enough for her Music course.

Karen was informed that the info given to her is wrong.

Foundations – Abandon all her beliefs
Coherence – She should not abandon all the beliefs because there might be other explanations
why she had those beliefs.

Belief Perseverance
 Most likely Karen will retain her beliefs even if those beliefs are now ungrounded
 Ross and Anderson's recent survey article concerns experimental deception – presumed that
through debriefing the subjects will eliminate any effects brought by false information
 The phenomenon of belief perseverance in the face of evidential discrediting shows that beliefs
can survive even though the original evidential bases are destructed.
The Habit Theory of Belief
 Belief is a habit of thought (this should be recognized apart from Behaviorism)
 Like Bad habit one must consciously take steps to ensure that the habit wouldn't reassert itself
 Alvin Goldman observing Anderson and Bower -associative links – these connections or links,
once set up, cannot be broken easily unless competing connections are set up that overwhelm
the original ones
 The subjects do not see/realize that their beliefs have been discredited because they see all sorts
of reasons for the beliefs, where these reasons connects with other beliefs
 Coherence Theory

Positive Versus Negative Undermining

Principle of Positive Undermining: One should stop believing P whenever one positively
believes one's reasons for believing P are no good
 does not suppose the absence of justification is a reason to stop believing something. It only
allows one to abandon beliefs if the reasons are no good

Principle of Negative Undermining: One should stop believing P whenever one does not
associate one's belief in P with an adequate justification (either intrinsic or extrinsic)
 implies that, as one loses tracks of the justifications of one's beliefs, one should give up those
beliefs

*In belief perseverance, there is always a paradigm of irrationality

On Not Reasoning Probabilistically

1. Subjective probability – degree of truth one assigns to a certain belief
2. Expected Utility – degree of desirability to produce various outcomes of actions
 Because of the above , you have to reason out probabilistically
 but, people have great difficulty with probability and make the most elementary mistakes from
this point of view
• it would be impossible for finite beings to thinks infinitely or in this case a probabilistic
manner
• there would be a problem of combinatorial explosion
• one cannot remember all encounters to immediate perceptual evidence
• one cannot reason out in a ye/no fashion

Keeping Track of Justification

 To supposed that people keep track of justifications of their beliefs is to suppose that they will
remember everything and cannot just retrieve it from memory
 Clutter Avoidance
 there is a limit to what one can remember, put into long term storage, and retrieve
 one needs to remember the conclusion but does not normally need to remember all the
immediate steps involved in reaching for the conclusion.