Varieties of interpersonal compatibility of beliefs

In Jelle Gerbrandy, Maarten Marx, Maarten de Rijke & Yde Venema (eds.), Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday. Amsterdam University Press (1999)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Since Lewis’s (1969) and Aumann’s (1976) pioneering contributions, the concepts of common knowledge and common belief have been discussed extensively in the literature, both syntactically and semantically1. At the individual level the difference between knowledge and belief is usually identified with the presence or absence of the Truth Axiom ( iA → A), which is interpreted as ”if individual i believes that A, then A is true”. In such a case the individual is often said to know that A (thus it is possible for an individual to believe a false proposition but she cannot know a false proposition). Going to the interpersonal level, the literature then distinguishes between common knowledge and common belief on the basis of whether or not the Truth Axiom is postulated at the individual level. However, while at the individual level the Truth Axiom captures merely a relationship between the individuals’ beliefs and the external world, at the interpersonal level it has very strong implications. For example, the following is a consequence of the Truth Axiom: i jA → iA, that is, if individual i believes that individual j believes that A, then individual i herself believes that A. Thus, in contrast to other axioms, the Truth Axiom does not merely reflect individual agents’ “logic of belief”. (The reason why the Truth Axiom is much stronger in an interpersonal context than appears at first glance is that it amounts to assuming that agreement of any individual’s belief with the truth is common knowledge). Given its logical force, it is not surprising to find that it has strong implications for the logic of common knowledge. In particular, if each individual’s beliefs satisfy the strongest logic of knowledge (namely S5 or KT5), the associated common knowledge operator satisfies this logic too. Such is not the case for belief: bereft of the Truth Axiom, even the strongest logic for individual belief (KD45) is insufficient to ensure the satisfaction of the “Negative Introspection” axiom for common belief: ¬ ∗A → ∗¬ ∗A (where ∗ denotes the common belief operator)..

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,173

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Common belief with the logic of individual belief.Giacomo Bonanno - 2000 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 46 (1):49-52.
Strong Completeness Theorems for Weak Logics of Common Belief.Lismont Luc & Mongin Philippe - 2003 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (2):115-137.
The Fragility of Common Knowledge.Cédric Paternotte - 2017 - Erkenntnis 82 (3):451-472.
The Logic of Belief Persistence.Pierpaolo Battigalli & Giacomo Bonanno - 1997 - Economics and Philosophy 13 (1):39-59.
Should knowledge entail belief?Joseph Y. Halpern - 1996 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (5):483 - 494.
On the Logic of Common Belief.Giacomo Bonanno - 1996 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 42 (1):305-311.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
85 (#246,172)

6 months
5 (#1,037,427)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Giacomo Bonanno
University of California, Davis

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Convention: A Philosophical Study.David Kellogg Lewis - 1969 - Cambridge, MA, USA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Modal Logic: An Introduction.Brian F. Chellas - 1980 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Convention: A Philosophical Study.David K. Lewis - 1971 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 4 (2):137-138.
On the Logic of Common Belief.Giacomo Bonanno - 1996 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 42 (1):305-311.

Add more references