Presenter: Ted Shear (UQ)

In this talk, we compare and contrast two approaches for revising qualitative (viz., “full”) beliefs. The first approach is a naïve Bayesian (viz., Lockean) one, which operates via conditionalization on credences and a Lockean thesis jointly governing coherence of credences and beliefs. The second approach is AGM (the classical, logical approach to revision). Our aim is to provide the most straightforward explanation of the ways in which these two approaches agree and disagree with each other.