<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-06-02T20:51:04Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:riuma.uma.es:10630/18275" metadataPrefix="mods">https://riuma.uma.es/rest/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:riuma.uma.es:10630/18275</identifier><datestamp>2026-02-03T12:11:38Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_10630_2254</setSpec><setSpec>col_10630_37959</setSpec></header><metadata><mods:mods xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-1.xsd">
   <mods:name>
      <mods:namePart>Yuste-Ginel, Antonio</mods:namePart>
   </mods:name>
   <mods:name>
      <mods:namePart>Burrieza-Muñiz, Alfredo</mods:namePart>
   </mods:name>
   <mods:extension>
      <mods:dateAvailable encoding="iso8601">2019-09-06T08:26:49Z</mods:dateAvailable>
   </mods:extension>
   <mods:extension>
      <mods:dateAccessioned encoding="iso8601">2019-09-06T08:26:49Z</mods:dateAccessioned>
   </mods:extension>
   <mods:originInfo>
      <mods:dateIssued encoding="iso8601">2019-09-06</mods:dateIssued>
   </mods:originInfo>
   <mods:identifier type="uri">https://hdl.handle.net/10630/18275</mods:identifier>
   <mods:abstract>There exists certain circularity between the formation of some epistemic atti-&#xd;
tudes of an agent and the way she assesses her available arguments. For the sake of simplicity,&#xd;
I will restrict my attention to the case of beliefs in what follows. The mentioned circularity&#xd;
arises when one tries to embrace two principles that, taken separately, seems to be intuitively&#xd;
acceptable:&#xd;
1. When an agent assesses her available arguments, she should take into account her&#xd;
beliefs with respect to the premises. In this sense, arguments with believed premises&#xd;
should be taken to be stronger by the agent than arguments whose premises are not&#xd;
believed.&#xd;
2. The beliefs of an agent should be partially determined by the evaluation she performs&#xd;
of her available arguments. To be more precise, if an agent is considering her doxastic&#xd;
attitude towards a proposition P, then she should  rst assess her available arguments&#xd;
about P and form her belief consequently (for instance, by believing P if her strongest&#xd;
argument is in favour of P)&#xd;
The tension between both principles becomes clearer when one compares works in formal&#xd;
argumentation (endorsing the  rst one) to works in epistemic logic (endorsing the second&#xd;
one). During my talk, I will propose a formal model that allows us to (consistently) endorse&#xd;
some version of both principles. After that, I will explain that the epistemological view that&#xd;
underlies this model corresponds to some sort of foundationalism. In this view of founda-&#xd;
tionalism, we can distinguish between basic beliefs and argument-based beliefs. Within the&#xd;
second class, another distinction can be drawn between strong beliefs (based on deductive&#xd;
arguments) and weak beliefs (based on defeasible arguments). To conclude, I will point out&#xd;
what kind of epistemic actions can change each type of beliefs.</mods:abstract>
   <mods:language>
      <mods:languageTerm>eng</mods:languageTerm>
   </mods:language>
   <mods:accessCondition type="useAndReproduction">open access</mods:accessCondition>
   <mods:subject>
      <mods:topic>Lógica epistémica</mods:topic>
   </mods:subject>
   <mods:titleInfo>
      <mods:title>On the Tension between Belief Formation and Argument Evaluation</mods:title>
   </mods:titleInfo>
   <mods:genre>conference output</mods:genre>
</mods:mods>
</metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>