The game of inquiry: the interrogative approach to inquiry and belief revision theory

Abstract

I. Levi has advocated a decision-theoretic account of belief revision. We argue that the game-theoretic framework of Interrogative Inquiry Games, proposed by J. Hintikka, can extend and clarify this account. We show that some strategic use of the game rules (or 'policies') generate Expansions, Contractions and Revisions, and we give representation results. We then extend the framework to represent explicitly (multiple) sources of answers, and apply it to discuss the Recovery Postulate. We conclude with some remarks about the potential extensions of interrogative games, with respect to some issues in the theory of belief change.

Inquiry and Deliberation in Judicial Systems: The Problem of Jury Size

“…While the IMI already accommodates reasoning from uncertain answers, it does so either by introducing probabilities, attached to uncertain answers, as reflecting their relative justification (Hintikka, 1987), or by introducing means to disregard (possibly provisionally) or "bracket" some background assumptions or instrumental answers when their justifications are questioned (Hintikka, 1998;Genot, 2009). Thus there is a sense in which IMI, unlike the present model, pays attention to what we referred to as the "finer structure of reasons".…”

Inquiry, Refutations and the Inconsistent

“…The interrogative models of inquiry has largely been studied by the Helsinki School, and the major arguments of this research program can be found in a series of articles (Hintikka, 1988;Hintikka, 1984;Hintikka, 1987;Hintikka & Harris, 1988;Hintikka et al, 1999;Halonen & Hintikka, 2005;Hintikka, 2007;Garrison, 1988;Genot, 2009). Recently, Carnielli studied the connection between interrogative models and paraconsistency, which also influenced the current paper (Carnielli, 2009).…”

“…In short, whenever there seems to be a problem within the theory, the theory utilizes its own internal tools to fix itself. Some call it belief revision, some call it epistemic updates, there are various other logical methods which operate with a similar method to achieve a similar goal (Genot, 2009;Garrison, 1988).…”

Logics of questions

“…often take rather different perspectives, some being concerned primarily with the role that questions play in communication (e.g., Hamblin 1973;Belnap and Steel 1976;Karttunen 1977;Bennett 1979;Belnap 1982;Groenendijk and Stokhof 1984;von Stechow 1991;Ginzburg 1995a, b;Krifka 2001;Aloni et al 2007;Ciardelli et al 2013) and others focusing on their role in scientific inquiry and the acquisition and revision of knowledge and beliefs (e.g., Bromberger 1966;Hintikka 1999Hintikka , 2007Wiśniewski 1995Wiśniewski , 2013Olsson and Westlund 2006;Enqvist 2009;Genot 2009;van Benthem and Minicȃ 2012). 1 The field has witnessed a wealth of activity in the past decade.…”

“…On the one hand, substantial contributions have been made to several established approaches, such as the Interrogative Model of Inquiry and Inferential Erotetic Logic, culminating in two book-length expositions (Hintikka 2007;Wiśniewski 2013). Moreover, these established approaches, in particular the Interrogative Model of Inquiry, have found new applications in recent work, especially in connection with belief revision theory (Olsson and Westlund 2006;Enqvist 2009;Genot 2009). On the other hand, several new logical theories of questions have emerged as well, in particular within the framework of Dynamic Epistemic Logic (e.g., van Benthem and Minicȃ 2012), and in Inquisitive Semantics (e.g., Ciardelli et al 2013).…”