<?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>2026-06-05T14:22:47Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:riuma.uma.es:10630/18275" metadataPrefix="qdc">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><qdc:qualifieddc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xmlns:qdc="http://dspace.org/qualifieddc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/qdc/2006/01/06/dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/terms/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/qdc/2006/01/06/dcterms.xsd http://dspace.org/qualifieddc/ http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/xmlschema/qualifieddc.xsd">
   <dc:title>On the Tension between Belief Formation and Argument Evaluation</dc:title>
   <dc:creator>Yuste-Ginel, Antonio</dc:creator>
   <dc:creator>Burrieza-Muñiz, Alfredo</dc:creator>
   <dc:subject>Lógica epistémica</dc:subject>
   <dcterms: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.</dcterms:abstract>
   <dcterms:dateAccepted>2019-09-06T08:26:49Z</dcterms:dateAccepted>
   <dcterms:available>2019-09-06T08:26:49Z</dcterms:available>
   <dcterms:created>2019-09-06T08:26:49Z</dcterms:created>
   <dcterms:issued>2019-09-06</dcterms:issued>
   <dc:type>conference output</dc:type>
   <dc:identifier>https://hdl.handle.net/10630/18275</dc:identifier>
   <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
   <dc:relation>FiloLab Summerschool 19</dc:relation>
   <dc:relation>Granada</dc:relation>
   <dc:relation>2019</dc:relation>
   <dc:rights>open access</dc:rights>
</qdc:qualifieddc>
</metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>