Novel insights challenge existing belief revision theories, highlighting flaws in the principle of anticipation.
I outline a novel counterexample to the principle of belief revision, Anticipation : if both learning and learning not‐ would render belief in unjustified, you cannot now be justified in believing . If I am right, not only is the leading theory of belief revision false, so are various recently proposed weakenings. I develop and defend a new theory that correctly predicts the failures of Anticipation I argue for, predicated on the simple idea that one is justified in ruling out possibility just in case that possibility is sufficiently improbable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joshua Edward Pearson (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: