Evidence of Evidence in Epistemic Logic

2019 ◽  
pp. 265-297
Author(s):  
Timothy Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Epistemic Logic ◽  
Formal Models ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Negative Introspection ◽  
Bridge Principles

The slogan ‘Evidence of evidence is evidence’ is obscure. It has been applied to connect evidence in one situation to evidence in another. The link may be diachronic or interpersonal. Is present evidence of past or future evidence for p present evidence for p? Is evidence for me of evidence for you for p evidence for me for p? The chapter discusses intra-perspectival evidential links. Is present evidence for me of present evidence for me for p present evidence for me for p? Unless the connection holds between a perspective and itself, it is unlikely to hold between distinct perspectives. Evidence will be understood probabilistically, using formal models from epistemic logic. Bridge principles between first-level and higher-level epistemic conditions often imply versions of controversial principles, such as positive and negative introspection. Formalizations of intra-perspectival principles that evidence of evidence is evidence have similarly implausible connections.

Scholastická logika „vědění“ I.

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 127-205
Author(s):  
Miroslav Hanke ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ages ◽  
Epistemic Logic ◽  
Unified Framework ◽  
Founding Father ◽  
The Core ◽  
Cognitive Operations ◽  
Conceptual Background ◽  
John Wyclif ◽  
Negative Introspection ◽  
Positive Introspection

Fourteenth-century logic gave rise, among others, to the genre De scire et dubitare, which offered a unified framework for discussing different forms of epistemic sophisms by utilising the underlying systems of epistemic logic. One of the problems introduced in this context already by the founding father of this genre, William Heytesbury, was the so-called axiom of positive introspection, i.e., the principle that an agent who knows that something is the case, knows that she knows that it is the case. Owing to Heytesbury’s enormous popularity in the subsequent centuries, discussion of this problem became relatively widespread. This debate was addressed already in Boh’s seminal Epistemic Logic in the Later Middle Ages, which, despite its limitations acknowledged by its author, is a standard source. The present study elaborates on Boh by extending the corpus of his works (both in the sense of including new authors and of utilising manuscripts along with printed editions) and drawing new connections based on that. The core of the survey consists of an analysis of the positions of William Heytesbury and John Wyclif (both pertaining to the context of Merton College), their Italian reception by Peter of Mantua, and the “continental” reception of Heytesbury by John of Holland. The main goals of this study are to formalise the key arguments, which makes it possible to address the underlying systems of epistemic logic and their respective “strength”, and to articulate the conceptual background of those arguments and systems (the concepts of evidence, attention, and order of cognitive operations). The gist of the debate is, on one of the sides, an attempt to prove that it is impossible to doubt whether one knows that something is the case by employing whether the principles of positive introspection and of distribution of knowledge over implication, or the principles of positive and negative introspection combined.

Coming to Know by Asking Questions

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-102
Author(s):  
Rosen Lutskanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Information Retrieval ◽  
Epistemic Logic ◽  
Realistic Model ◽  
Dynamic Epistemic Logic ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Formal Models ◽  
Asking Questions ◽  
The One ◽  
Socratic Turn ◽  
Coming To Know

The paper explores the intricate interplay of two parallel developments: on the one hand, the Socratic turn in epistemology with its shifting focus on information retrieval, evidence-based reasoning, and the cognitive relevance of questions; and the advance of dynamic epistemic logic with its accent on knowledge-acquisition. Both are relevant for any realistic model of knowledge which pays due attention to learning. It is argued that the formal models are still wanting in some key respects, but the development of alternative and mutually complementing logical systems marks a promising trend for re-establishing the close links between epistemology and epistemic logic.

The Multiple Faces of Risk-Taking

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Schmitz ◽  
Karsten Manske ◽  
Franzis Preckel ◽  
Oliver Wilhelm
Keyword(s):  
Risk Taking ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
Formal Models ◽  
Experimental Paradigm ◽  
Nomological Network ◽  
Balloon Analogue Risk Task ◽  
Parameter Recovery ◽  
Task Specificity ◽  
Available Information ◽  
Criterion Variables

Abstract. The Balloon-Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al., 2002 ) is one of the most popular behavioral tasks suggested to assess risk-taking in the laboratory. Previous research has shown that the conventionally computed score is predictive, but neglects available information in the data. We suggest a number of alternative scores that are motivated by theories of risk-taking and that exploit more of the available data. These scores can be grouped around (1) risk-taking, (2) task performance, (3) impulsive decision making, and (4) reinforcement sequence modulation. Their theoretical rationale is detailed and their validity is tested within the nomological network of risk-taking, deviance, and scholastic achievement. Two multivariate studies were conducted with youths (n = 435) and with adolescents/young adults (n = 316). Additionally, we tested formal models suggested for the BART that decompose observed behavior into a set of meaningful parameters. A simulation study with parameter recovery was conducted, and the data from the two studies were reanalyzed using the models. Most scores were reliable and differentially predictive of criterion variables and may be used in basic research. However, task specificity and the generally moderate validity do not warrant use of the experimental paradigm for diagnostic purposes.

Constructing and Deconstructing Concepts

2016 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 249-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles A. Doan ◽  
Ronaldo Vigo
Keyword(s):  
Information Theory ◽  
Model Performance ◽  
Unsupervised Classification ◽  
Family Resemblance ◽  
Category Membership ◽  
Formal Models ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
One Dimensional ◽  
Relational Patterns ◽  
Optimal Classification

Abstract. Several empirical investigations have explored whether observers prefer to sort sets of multidimensional stimuli into groups by employing one-dimensional or family-resemblance strategies. Although one-dimensional sorting strategies have been the prevalent finding for these unsupervised classification paradigms, several researchers have provided evidence that the choice of strategy may depend on the particular demands of the task. To account for this disparity, we propose that observers extract relational patterns from stimulus sets that facilitate the development of optimal classification strategies for relegating category membership. We conducted a novel constrained categorization experiment to empirically test this hypothesis by instructing participants to either add or remove objects from presented categorical stimuli. We employed generalized representational information theory (GRIT; Vigo, 2011b , 2013a , 2014 ) and its associated formal models to predict and explain how human beings chose to modify these categorical stimuli. Additionally, we compared model performance to predictions made by a leading prototypicality measure in the literature.

A Quick Visual Mind Can be a Slow Auditory Mind

2009 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sander Martens ◽  
Addie Johnson ◽  
Martje Bolle ◽  
Jelmer Borst
Keyword(s):  
Attentional Blink ◽  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Human Mind ◽  
Visual Modality ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Conscious Level ◽  
Visual Targets ◽  
Concurrent Information

The human mind is severely limited in processing concurrent information at a conscious level of awareness. These temporal restrictions are clearly reflected in the attentional blink (AB), a deficit in reporting the second of two targets when it occurs 200–500 ms after the first. However, we recently reported that some individuals do not show a visual AB, and presented psychophysiological evidence that target processing differs between “blinkers” and “nonblinkers”. Here, we present evidence that visual nonblinkers do show an auditory AB, which suggests that a major source of attentional restriction as reflected in the AB is likely to be modality-specific. In Experiment 3, we show that when the difficulty in identifying visual targets is increased, nonblinkers continue to show little or no visual AB, suggesting that the presence of an AB in the auditory but not in the visual modality is not due to a difference in task difficulty.

Anticipated ambiguity prolongs the present: Evidence of a return trip effect.

2016 ◽  
Vol 145 (11) ◽  
pp. 1415-1419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam J. Maglio ◽  
Cherrie Y. N. Kwok
Keyword(s):  
Trip Effect ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Return Trip

Influential individuals: Approach to modeling

2018 ◽  
pp. 114-131
Author(s):  
O. Yu. Bondarenko
Keyword(s):  
Social Interactions ◽  
Social Status ◽  
Experimental Approach ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Formal Models ◽  
Leader Influence ◽  
Learning Game ◽  
Game Theoretic ◽  
Asymmetric Interactions ◽  
Influential Individuals

his article explores theoretical and experimental approach to modeling social interactions. Communication and exchange of information with other people affect individual’s behavior in numerous areas. Generally, such influence is exerted by leaders, outstanding individuals who have a higher social status or expert knowledge. Social interactions are analyzed in the models of social learning, game theoretic models, conformity models, etc. However, there is a lack of formal models of asymmetric interactions. Such models could help elicit certain qualities characterizing higher social status and perception of status by other individuals, find the presence of leader influence and analyze its mechanism.

Improving the questions we ask, with Psychology and Cognitive Conflict.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Buttliere
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Meaning Making ◽  
Cognitive Conflict ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
Science In Society

Over the last decade, there have been many suggestions to improve how scientists answer their questions, but far fewer attempt to improve the questions scientists are asking in the first place. The goal of the paper is then to examine and summarize synthesize the evidence on how to ask the best questions possible. First is a brief review of the philosophical and empirical literature on how the best science is done, which implicitly but not explicitly mentions the role of psychology and especially cognitive conflict. Then we more closely focus on the psychology of the scientist, finding that they are humans, engaged in a meaning making process, and that cognitive conflict is a necessary input for any learning or change in the system. The scientific method is, of course, a specialized meaning making process. We present evidence for this central role of cognitive conflict in science by examining the most discussed scientific papers between 2013 and 2017, which are, in general, controversial and about big problems (e.g., whether vaccines cause autism, how often doctors kill us with their mistakes). Toward the end we discuss the role of science in society, suggesting science itself is an uncertainty reducing and problem solving enterprise. From this basis we encourage scientists to take riskier stances on bigger topics, for the good of themselves and society generally.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document