Formal models of coherence and legal epistemology

Artificial Intelligence and Law

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 429-447

  Amaya, Amalia ^a  

^a HARVARD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Belief revision; Coherence; Constraint satisfaction; Legal epistemology

Indexed keywords

CONSTRAINT THEORY; DECISION MAKING; LAWS AND LEGISLATION;

BELIEF REVISION; CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION; LEGAL EPISTEMOLOGY;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 35948994882     PISSN: 09248463     EISSN: 15728382     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10506-007-9050-4     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Alchourrón CE, Gärdenfors P, Makinson D (1985) On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J Symbol Logic 50:510-530
2. Amaya A (2006) An inquiry into the nature of coherence and its role in legal argument, PhD thesis, European University Institute
3. Balterborth T (1999) Coherence and explanations. Erkenntnis 50:209-224
4. Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2001) Theory-based explanation of case law domains. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on AI and Law, 12-21 St Louis, MO ACM Press, New York
5. Bench-Capon T, Sartor G (2003) A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artif Intel Law 150:97-113
6. Bender J (1989) Coherence, justification, and knowledge: the current debate. In: Bender J (ed) The current state of the coherence theory: critical essays on the epistemic theories of Keith Lehrer and Lawrence BonJour, with replies, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1-14
7. BonJour L (1989) Replies and clarifications. In: Bender J (ed) The current state of the coherence theory, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 276-292
8. BonJour L (1999) The dialectic of foundationalism and coherentism. In: Greco J, Sosa E (eds) The Blackwell guide to epistemology, Blackwell, Oxford, pp 117-142
9. Conte ME (1999) Condizioni di Coerenza: Ricerche di Linguistica Testuale. Edizioni dell'Orso, Firenze
10. Doyle J (1992) Reason maintenance and belief revision: foundations vs coherence theories. In: Gärdenfors P (ed) Belief revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 29-51
11. Furhmann A (1997) An essay on contraction. CSLI Publications, Stanford
12. Gärdenfors P (1988) Knowledge in flux: modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. MIT Press, Cambridge
13. Gärdenfors P (1990) The dynamics of belief systems: foundations vs. coherence theories. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 172:24-46
14. Gärdenfors P (1992) Belief revision: an introduction. In: Gärdenfors P (ed) Belief revision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1-27
15. Gärdenfors P (2005) The dynamics of thought. Springer, Dordrecht
16. Gärdenfors P, Rott H (1995) Belief revision. In: Gabbay DM, Hogger CJ, Robinson JA (eds) Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming, vol 4, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 35-132
17. Hansson SO (1994) Taking belief bases seriously. In: Prawitz D, Westertøahl D (eds) Logic and philosophy of science in Uppsala. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 13-28
18. Hansson SO (1997a) Semi-revision. J Appl Non-Classical Logic 7:151-175
19. Hansson SO (1997b) What's new isn't always best. Theoria 63:1-13
20. Hansson SO (1999a) A textbook of belief dynamics. Kluwer, Dordrecht
21. Hansson SO (1999b) A survey of non-prioritized belief revision. Erkenntnis 51:413-427
22. Hansson SO (2003) Ten philosophical problems in belief revision. J Logic Comput 13:37-49
23. Hansson SO, Wassermann R (2002) Local change. Studia Logica 70:49-76
24. Hansson SO (2004) Belief revision from an epistemological point of view. In: Niiniluoto I, Sintonen M, Wolénski J (eds) Handbook of epistemology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 255-279
25. Hansson SO, Olsson EJ (1999) Providing foundations for coherentism. Erkenntnis 51:243-265
26. Harman G (1995) Rationality. In: Smith EE, Osherson DN (eds) An invitation to cognitive science, vol 3. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 175-212
27. Klein P, Warfield TA (1994) What price coherence? Analysis 54:129-132
28. Mares ED (2002) A paraconsistent theory of belief revision. Erkenntnis 56:229-246
29. Martin E, Osherson D (1997) Scientific discovery based on belief revision. J Symbol Logic 62:1352-1370
30. Martin E, Osherson D (1998) Elements of scientific inquiry. MIT Press, Cambridge
31. Martin E, Osherson D (2002) Scientific discovery from the perspective of hypothesis acceptance. Philos Sci 69:S331-S341
32. Nozick R (1993) The nature of rationality. Princeton University Press, Princeton
33. Olsson EJ (1997a) Coherence: studies in epistemology and belief revision, PhD thesis, Uppsala University
34. Olsson EJ (1997b) A coherence interpretation of semi-revision. Theoria 63:105-134
35. Olsson EJ (1998) Making beliefs coherent. J Logic Lang Inform 7:143-163
36. Olsson EJ (1999) Cohering with. Erkenntnis 50:273-291
37. Pollock JL, Gillies AS (2000) Belief revision and epistemology. Synthese 122:69-92
38. Priest G (2001) Paraconsistent belief revision. Theoria 67:214-228
39. Putnam H (1981) Reason, truth and history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
40. Rott H (2001) Change, choice and inference: a study of belief revision and nonmonotonic reasoning. Oxford University Press, Oxford
41. Shaffer MJ (2002) Coherence, justification, and the AGM theory of belief revision. In: Bouchard Y (ed) Perspectives on coherentism. Scribe, Aylmer, pp 139-160
42. Simon D (2004) A third view of the black box: cognitive coherence in legal decision-making. Univ Chicago Law Rev 65:511-586
43. Sintonen M, Kiikeri M (2004) Scientific discovery. In: Niiniluoto, I, Sintonen, M, Wolénski, J (eds) Handbook of epistemology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 205-253
44. Tanaka K (2005) The AGM theory and inconsistent belief change. Logique et Analyse 48:113-151
45. Thagard P (1989) Explanatory coherence. Behav Brain Sci 12:435-467
46. Thagard P (1992) Conceptual revolutions. Princeton University Press, Princeton
47. Thagard P (2000) Coherence in thought and action. MIT Press, Cambridge
48. Thagard P (2003) Why wasn't OJ convicted? Emotional coherence in legal inference. Cogn Emot 17:361-383
49. Thagard P (2004a) Causal inference in legal decision making: explanatory coherence vs Bayesian networks. Appl Artif Intel 18:231-249
50. Thagard P (2004b) What is doubt and when is it reasonable? In: Ezcurdia M, Stainton R, Viger C (eds) New essays in the philosophy of language and mind. Can J Philos 30:391S-406S
51. Thagard P (2005) Testimony, credibility, and explanatory coherence. Erkentnnis 63:295-316
52. Thagard P (2006a) Evaluating explanations in law, science, and everyday life. Curr Direct Psychol Sci 15:141-145
53. Thagard P (2006b) Hot thought: mechanisms and applications of emotional cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge
54. Thagard P, Verbeurgt K (1998) Coherence as constraint satisfaction cognitive. Science 22:1-24
55. Wassermann R (1999) Resource bounded belief revision. Erkenntnis 50:429-446
56. Wassermann R (2001) On structured belief bases. In: Williams MA, Rott H (eds) Frontiers in belief revision. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 349-367
57. Wassermann R (2003) Generalized change and the meaning of rationality postulates. Studia Logica 73:200-319
58. Williams M (1996) Unnatural doubts: epistemological realism and the basis of skepticism. Princenton University Press, Princeton
59. Wintgens L (2007, forthcoming) Making sense of coherence: the level theory of coherence. Artif Intel Law