Belief revision and uncertain reasoning

Thinking and Reasoning

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 217-234

  Politzer, Guy ^a   Carles, Laure ^b,c  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039038529     PISSN: 13546783     EISSN: 14640708     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13546780143000017     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bernard, J.-M., 1998. “ Bayesian inference for categorised data ”. In New ways in statistical methodology, Edited by: Rouanet, H., Bernard, J.-M., Bert, M.-C., Lecoutre, B., Lecoutre, M.-P., and Le Roux, B., 159–226. Bern: Peter Lang.
2. Chan, D., and Chua, F., 1994. Suppression of valid inferences: Syntactic views, mental models, and relative salience. Cognition, 53: 217–238.
3. Cummins, D. D., 1995. Naive theories and causal deduction. Memory anil Cognition, 23: 646–658.
4. Cummins, D. D., Lubart, T., Alknis, O., and Rist, R., 1991. Conditional reasoning and causation. Memory and Cognition, 19: 274–282.
5. Dieussaert, K., Schaeken, W., De Neys, W., and d'Ydewalle, G., 2000. Initial belief state as a predictor of belief revision. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 19: 277–288.
6. Elio, R., What to believe when inferences are contradicted: The impact of knowledge type and inference rule. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. pp. 211–216. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
7. Elio, R., How to disbelieve P → Q: Resolving contradictions. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. pp. 315–320. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
8. Elio, R., and Pelletier, F. J., 1997. Belief change as propositional update. Cognitive Science, 21: 419–460.
9. Gärdenfors, P., 1988. Knowledge in flux, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Gärdenfors, P., 1992. “ Belief revision: An introduction ”. In Belief revision, Edited by: Gärdenfors, P., 1–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. George, C., 1995. The endorsement of the premises: Assumption-based or belief-based reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 86: 93–111.
12. George, C., 1997. Reasoning from uncertain premises. Thinking and Reasoning, 3: 161–189.
13. Girotto, V., Johnson-Laird, P. N., Legrenzi, P., and Sonino, M., 2000. “ Reasoning to consistency: How people resolve logical inconsistencies ”. In Mental models in reasoning, Edited by: Garcia-Madruga, J., Carriedo, N., and González-Labra, M. J., 83–97. Madrid: UNED.
14. Harman, G., 1986. Change in view, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Liu, I-M., Lo, K.-C., and Wu, J.-T., 1996. A probabilistic interpretation of “If-Then. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A: 828–844.
16. Politzer, G., and George, C., Reasoning under uncertainty and non monotonicity: A pragmatic account. Paper presented at the 25th International Congress of Psychology. July, Brussels.
17. Stevenson, RJ., and Over, D. E., 1995. Deduction from uncertain premises. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A: 613–643.
18. Thagard, P., 1989. Explanatory coherence. Behavioral anil Bruin Sciences, 12: 435–467.
19. Thompson, V. A., 1994. Interpretational factors in conditional reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 22: 742–758.