Abstract
An approach to analyse the structure of balancing is the idea of defeasible reasoning. This is often explained by using a non-monotonic logic, admitting that new information can invalidate formerly valid inferences. A more fruitful alternative seems to be the the- ory of belief revision, which allows not only invalidating inferences, but to define how beliefs should change facing new information. A sophisticated version of belief revi- sion theory is developed by Wolfgang Spohn in his “ranking theory”. The issue of this paper is to analyse how this “ranking theory” fits into the structure of normative argu- mentation, distinguishing four types of balancing: epistemic, normative, relative, and intersubjective balancing.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
