Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
(B) Really? The lottery? W
resign?
(A) Mmmmm. OK, OK, y
Would you call your boss right now and tell her that y
you
you're right. I don't know for certain ...
(B) challenges the belief. H
line, if (A) had answered t
said that '(A) really thinks
however could still remain
fact it is quite possible th
While he would reckon th
Observe that in order for (
(A)'s belief not only should
but it also should be part of
In the example, however
makes (A)'s belief
unsucc
important thing to observe
magnitude will depend on t
how coherent the belief is w
higher the challenge. In our
(B), hence the difficult chal
Another issue should be
that when the evaluator of
first and the second person
(A) says that she knows tha
related to the belief under
{'today's the day of the lot
('good news' and 'day of the
when the challenge is throw
set of belief changes from t
of beliefs {'today's the day
'Dad plays lottery every ye
→ ('we won the lottery' or '
to reconsider the items in
considered belief. What we
her degree of reliance on th
belief that "we have won
perspective. She realizes t
agreement with it. Her belie
An interesting question
belief, and thus of the sal
depends on the needed degr
challenge. Let us see that th
the 'bank cases'. This time
amount of money into the
the couple has no pending
payment is due and there w
He needs to check that (A) has no doubts about it. In
he challenge taking it, (B) would have accepted and e
s that she knows that her father has won the lottery'.
n skeptical about the belief, not seeing it as certain yet
at (B) would have prevented (A) from calling her bo
hat she
must
know it, he would not endorse the bel
(B) to say that '(A) knows that we have won the lotte
d be successful for (B) from the second person perspect
f the corpus of knowledge of (B).
r, what actually happens is that (A) refuses to resign, wh
cessful
for (B) from the second person perspective. O
here is the magnitude of the challenge. We claim that
the specific situation in which the belief is uttered, and
with (B)'s salient set of beliefs. The less the coherence,
r example, winning the lottery seems highly implausible
llenge he throws to his girlfriend.
e discussed in relation with the lottery example. Obse
the belief coincides with the person having the belief,
n perspectives get highly connected. In our example, w
at "we have won the lottery", her salient set of beliefs,
evaluation would be something similar to the follow
tery', 'Dad has good news', 'Dad plays lottery every ye
e lottery') 'we won the lottery'}. Seconds later, howev
wn and the reconsideration of the belief begins, the sali
the original
1
to
2
, where
2
is closer to the following
of the lottery', 'today's a normal day', 'Dad has good new
ear', ('good news' and 'day of the lottery' and 'normal d
Dad got a new job' or ... )}. That is, the challenge leads
n
1
in order to increase her degree of reliance on
e observe, nevertheless, is that she fails, she cannot incre
he belief since given the new set of salient beliefs
2
,
the lottery" is no longer successful from the first per
then that she cannot rely on her belief enough to act
ef is neither successful from the second person perspecti
then is: What does the level of reconsideration of
lient set of beliefs, depends on? The answer is clear
ree of reliance on the belief, and so on the magnitude of
hrough the example, proposed by Stanley (2005, pp. 3-4
the challenge is to wait until Saturday to deposit a cert
account, instead of doing it today. In the
low stakes
ca
payments to make. In the
high stakes
case, an import
will be a heavy penalty if the payment is not made. If
this
even
(B)
t. In
oss.
lief.
ery',
tive,
hich
One
this
d on
the
e to
erve
the
hen
1
,
wing
ear',
ver,
ient
g set
ws',
ay')
(A)
the
ease
the
rson
t in
ive.
the
r: it
f the
4) of
tain
ase,
tant
f we
