Belief Revision II: Ranking Theory

Huber, Franz

doi:10.1111/phc3.12047

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The estimator’s name comes from this final step: analyze the model’s parameters by scrutinizing areas of the subject matter theory that had been used to justify those hypothesis parameter values that, surprisingly, have been found to be very different from their consistent values. This idea of “surprise” is related to the non-bayesian approach to belief revision of ranking theory (see [47]). In ranking theory, the model takes the form of a set of propositions and hence, broadly speaking, the value of one of the model’s parameters corresponds to a proposition.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing political-ecological theory: The need for Many-Task Computing

Haas

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

8Models of political-ecological systems can inform policies for managing ecosystems that 9 contain endangered species. One way to increase the credibility of these models is to 10 subject them to a rigorous suite of data-based statistical assessments. Doing so involves 11 statistically estimating the model's parameters, computing confidence intervals for these 12 parameters, determining the model's prediction error rate, and assessing its sensitivity to 13 parameter misspecification. 14 Here, these statistical algorithms along with a method for constructing politically fea-15 sible policies from a statistically fitted model, are coded as JavaSpaces TM programs that 16 run as compute jobs on either supercomputers or a collection of in-house workstations. 17 Several new algorithms for implementing such jobs in distributed computing environments 18 are described. 19 This downloadable code is used to compute each job's output for the management 20 challenge of conserving the East African cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus). This case study shows 21 that the proposed suite of statistical tools can be run on a supercomputer to establish the 22 credibility of a managerially-relevant model of a political-ecological system that contains 23 one or more endangered species. This demonstration means that the new standard of 24 credibility that any political-ecological model needs to meet before being used to inform 25 ecosystem management decisions, is the one given herein. 26 1 27 Keywords: social-ecological systems; ecosystem policymaking; agent-based modeling; 28 high performance computing; sensitivity analysis; statistical estimation of large models 29 1 Introduction 30There is a need to acknowledge the complexity of political-ecological systems and the signif-31 icant challenges to building theories of them [1]. Such systems lie at the interface between 32 social/political science and ecology. The complexity of each of these fields coupled with an 33 additional layer of complexity introduced by the interactions between sociological/political 34 systems and natural systems can result in highly complex system dynamics, i.e., ones that 35 are stiff, nonlinear, and possess feedback loops. For example, Schoon and Van der Leeuw [2] 36 note that systems composed of interacting sociological and ecological subsystems are quick 37 to change and rarely stay in equilibrium for long. Further, many state variables are needed 38 to describe both the decision making processes of the relevant social groups, and the func-39 tioning of the involved ecosystem. A political-ecological system is also referred to as a 40 socio-ecological system or social-ecological system (e.g., see [3]). The former term is em-41 phasized herein because those political actions and processes that drive social movements 42 are often initiated by groups seeking to gain increased political power [4]. Building such 43 models is more than an academic exercise. Indeed, the alarming decline in the planet's 44 biodiversity [5], creates a crucial need for credible politi...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing political-ecological theory: The need for Many-Task Computing

Haas

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, any such proposition will be equivalent to a set of propositions. In this section, I will ignore the distinction for ease of discussion, and talk of a set K.29 SeeHansson (2017) andHuber (2013aHuber ( , 2013b for an overview of the literature in belief revision, which was largely sparked by the proposal of the AGM theory of Alchourr ón,Gärdenfors, and Makinson (1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this section, I will ignore the distinction for ease of discussion, and talk of a set. 29 See Huber (2013aHuber ( , 2013b and Hansson (2017) for an overview of the literature in belief revision, which was largely sparked by the proposal of the AGM theory of Alchourrón et al (1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fragmentation and Old Evidence

Fleisher

2021

Episteme

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bayesian confirmation theory is our best formal framework for describing inductive reasoning. The problem of old evidence is a particularly difficult one for confirmation theory, because it suggests that this framework fails to account for central and important cases of inductive reasoning and scientific inference. I show that we can appeal to the fragmentation of doxastic states to solve this problem for confirmation theory. This fragmentation solution is independently well-motivated because of the success of fragmentation in solving other problems. I also argue that the fragmentation solution is preferable to other solutions to the problem of old evidence. These other solutions are already committed to something like fragmentation, but suffer from difficulties due to their additional commitments. If these arguments are successful, Bayesian confirmation theory is saved from the problem of old evidence, and the argument for fragmentation is bolstered by its ability to solve yet another problem.

show abstract

“…He defends this consequence; I find it unacceptable. 12 More extensive presentations may be found inHuber (2013),Spohn (2009) andSpohn (2012, ch. 5)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic justification: its subjective and its objective ways

Spohn

2017

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective standards for justification or for being a reason would be desirable, but inductive skepticism tells us that they cannot be presupposed. Rather, we have to start from subjective-relative notions of justification and of being a reason. The paper lays out the strategic options we have given this dilemma. The paper explains the requirements for this subject-relative notion and how they may be satisfied. Then it discusses four quite heterogeneous ways of providing more objective standards, which combine without guaranteeing complete success.

show abstract

Belief Revision II: Ranking Theory

Cited by 5 publications

References 28 publications

Developing political-ecological theory: The need for Many-Task Computing

Developing political-ecological theory: The need for Many-Task Computing

Fragmentation and Old Evidence

Epistemic justification: its subjective and its objective ways

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About