Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T15:32:48.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A NEW PROSPECT FOR EPISTEMIC AGGREGATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2013

Abstract

How should the opinion of a group be related to the opinions of the group members? In this article, we will defend a package of four norms – coherence, locality, anonymity and unanimity. Existing results show that there is no tenable procedure for aggregating outright beliefs or for aggregating credences that meet these criteria. In response, we consider the prospects for aggregating credal pairs – pairs of prior probabilities and evidence. We show that there is a method of aggregating credal pairs that possesses all four virtues.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Douven, Igor, and Williamson, Timothy. 2006. “Generalizing the Lottery Paradox.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57(4): 755–79.Google Scholar
Douven, Igor, and Romeijn, Jan-Willem. 2007. “The Discursive Dilemma as a Lottery Paradox.” Economics and Philosophy, 23: 301–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitelson, Branden, and Easwaran, Kenny. 2013. “Accuracy, Coherence, and Evidence.” Paper presented at Soberfest, Madison, WI, 24–25 May.Google Scholar
List, Christian, and Pettit, Philip. 2004. “Aggregating Sets of Judgments: Two Impossibility Results Compared.” Synthese, 140: 207–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConway, Kevin. 1981. “Marginalization and Linear Opinion Pools.” Journal of American Statistics, 76: 410–14.Google Scholar
Russell, Jeffrey Sanford, Hawthorne, John, and Buchak, Lara. “Groupthink.” Manuscript.Google Scholar
Wagner, Carl. 1982. “Allocation, Lehrer Models, and the Consensus of Probabilities,” Theory and Decision, 14: 207–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar