Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T13:38:34.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aggregating Causal Judgments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Richard Bradley ,
Franz Dietrich  and
Christian List
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Decision making typically requires judgments about causal relations: we need to know the causal effects of our actions and the causal relevance of various environmental factors. We investigate how several individuals’ causal judgments can be aggregated into collective causal judgments. First, we consider the aggregation of causal judgments via the aggregation of probabilistic judgments and identify the limitations of this approach. We then explore the possibility of aggregating causal judgments independently of probabilistic ones. Formally, we introduce the problem of causal-network aggregation. Finally, we revisit the aggregation of probabilistic judgments when this is constrained by prior aggregation of qualitative causal judgments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 81 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 491 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Previous versions of this article were presented at a Choice Group seminar at the London School of Economics, October 2006; the 2006 conference of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vancouver, November 2006; and the 2nd Philosophy of Biology at Dolphin Beach workshop, Kioloa, New South Wales, August 2007. We thank the seminar and conference participants as well as two anonymous referees for very helpful comments and suggestions.

References

Aczél, J., and Wagner, C.. 1980. “A Characterization of Weighted Arithmetic Means.” SIAM Journal on Algebraic and Discrete Methods 1:259–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. 2007. “Reaching a Consensus.” Social Choice and Welfare 29 (4): 609–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. 2007. “A Generalised Model of Judgment Aggregation.” Social Choice and Welfare 28 (4): 529–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F., and List, C.. 2007a. “Judgment Aggregation by Quota Rules: Majority Voting Generalized.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 19 (4): 391–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F., and List, C. 2007b. “Opinion Pooling on General Agendas.” Working paper, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F., and List, C. 2008. “A Liberal Paradox for Judgment Aggregation.” Social Choice and Welfare 31 (1): 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F., and List, C. 2010a. “The Impossibility of Unbiased Judgment Aggregation.” Theory and Decision 68 (3): 281–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F., and List, C. 2010b. “Majority Voting on Restricted Domains.” Journal of Economic Theory 145 (2): 441–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genest, C., and Wagner, K.. 1984. “Further Evidence against Independence Preservation in Expert Judgment Synthesis.” Technical Report no. 84-10, Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo.Google Scholar
Genest, C., and Zidek, J. V.. 1986. “Combining Probability Distributions: A Critique and Annotated Bibliography.” Statistical Science 1 (1): 113–35.Google Scholar
Glymour, C., Spirtes, P., and Scheines, R.. 1990. “Independence Relations Produced by Parameter Values in Causal Models.” Philosophical Topics 18 (2): 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, K., and Wagner, C.. 1981. Rational Consensus in Science and Society. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. 2001. “Mission Impossible? The Problem of Democratic Aggregation in the Face of Arrow’s Theorem.” PhD diss., Oxford University.Google Scholar
List, C. 2003. “A Possibility Theorem on Aggregation over Multiple Propositions.” Mathematical Social Sciences 45 (1): 1–13.; see also the corrigendum in Mathematical Social Sciences 52 (1): 109–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. 2004. “A Model of Path-Dependence in Decisions over Multiple Propositions.” American Political Science Review 98 (3): 495–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. 2012. “The Theory of Judgment Aggregation: An Introductory Review.” Synthese 187 (1): 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C., and Pettit, P.. 2002. “Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result.” Economics and Philosophy 18 (1): 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C., and Pettit, P. 2004. “Aggregating Sets of Judgments: Two Impossibility Results Compared.” Synthese 140 (1–2): 207–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C., and Puppe, C.. 2009. “Judgment Aggregation: A Survey.” In Oxford Handbook of Rational and Social Choice, ed. Anand, P., Puppe, C., and Pattanaik, P., 457–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McConway, K. J. 1981. “Marginalization and Linear Opinion Pools.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 76 (374): 410–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, M. K., and Osherson, D.. 2009. “Methods for Distance-Based Judgment Aggregation.” Social Choice and Welfare 32 (4): 575–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauly, M., and van Hees, M.. 2006. “Logical Constraints on Judgment Aggregation.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (6): 569–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, J. 2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pigozzi, G. 2006. “Belief Merging and the Discursive Dilemma: An Argument-Based Account to Paradoxes in Judgment Aggregation.” Synthese 152 (2): 285–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., and Scheines, R.. 2000. Causation, Prediction and Search. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, C. 1982. “Allocation, Lehrer Models, and the Consensus of Probabilities.” Theory and Decision 14 (2): 207–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, C. 1985. “On the Formal Properties of Weighted Averaging as a Method of Aggregation.” Synthese 62 (1): 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar