Coherence and Correspondence in the Network Dynamics of Belief Suites

Abstract

Coherence and correspondence are classical contenders as theories of truth. In this paper we examine them instead as interacting factors in the dynamics of belief across epistemic networks. We construct an agent-based model of network contact in which agents are characterized not in terms of single beliefs but in terms of internal belief suites. Individuals update elements of their belief suites on input from other agents in order both to maximize internal belief coherence and to incorporate ‘trickled in’ elements of truth as correspondence. Results, though often intuitive, prove more complex than in simpler models (Hegselmann and Krause 2002, 2006; Grim et al. 2015). The optimistic finding is that pressures toward internal coherence can exploit and expand on small elements of truth as correspondence is introduced into epistemic networks. Less optimistic results show that pressures for coherence can also work directly against the incorporation of truth, particularly when coherence is established first and new data are introduced later.

Ethics of Belief in Paranormal Phenomena

“…In an online survey, Irwin et al (2012) administered Rassin's (2008) questionnaire measure direct comparison (Geschke et al, 2010;Kurzban, 2010;Sloman, 2002); or temporarily exclude one of the conflicting beliefs from active consideration (Boudry & Braeckman, 2011;Hansson, 2017); or even mount mental barriers between the beliefs (a hypothetical cognitive process variously termed compartmentalizing, encapsulating, or partitioning; Davies & Egan, 2013). Each of these cognitive processing stratagems seemingly has the objective of circumventing potential tension between conflicting propositions and thereby enhancing the systemic coherence of belief networks (Grim et al, 2017). In such cases, however, the inconsistent beliefs may co-exist relatively unchanged for some time.…”

A Method for Computing Conceptual Distances between Medical Recommendations: Experiments in Modeling Medical Disagreement

“…That they do is interesting and worth investigating. Thus, this article is also motivated by the idea that epistemology of disagreement [7][8][9] can be modeled computationally. On the abstract level, we view medical disagreement as "near-peer" disagreement [10][11][12], where we see expert groups as having partly overlapping knowledge.…”

Computing Conceptual Distances between Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines: An Implementation of a Near-Peer Epistemic Model of Medical Disagreement

“…The importance of this new approach lies in its contribution to computational approaches to epistemology (Grim et al (2017)), which could provide a complementary representation to the standard formal analysis, represented by Bayesian 12 and formal 13 epistemology.…”

“…The complexity of normative standards in considering truth in the context of disagreement is discussed in Grim et al (2017). In the data science setting, medical expert disagreement and an adjudication process, in analyzing time series data, is described in Schaekermann et al (2019a) and Schaekermann et al (2019b); there, the authors observe that this process does not eliminate the disagreement, although it reduces its magnitude.…”