Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

META-INDUCTION IN EPISTEMIC NETWORKS AND THE SOCIAL SPREAD OF KNOWLEDGE

Abstract
Abstract

Indicators of the reliability of informants are essential for social learning in a society that is initially dominated by ignorance or superstition. Such reliability indicators should be based on meta-induction over records of truth-success. This is the major claim of this paper, and it is supported in two steps. (1) One needs a non-circular justification of the method of meta-induction, as compared to other (non-inductive) learning methods. An approach to this problem (a variant of Hume's problem) has been developed in earlier papers and is reported in section 2. It is based on the predictive optimality of meta-inductive learning, under the assumption that objective success records are globally available. (2) The rest of the paper develops an extension of this approach, so-called local meta-induction. Here individuals can access only success records of individuals in their immediate epistemic neighborhood. It is shown that local meta-inductive learning can spread reliable information over the entire population, and has clear advantages compared to success-independent social learning methods such as peer-imitation and authority-imitation.

Copyright
Corresponding author
gerhard.schurz@phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

M. H. DeGroot 1974. ‘Reaching Consensus’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(345): 118–21.

P. M. DeMarzo , D. Vayanos , and J. Zwiebel 2003. ‘Persuasion Bias, Social Influence, and Uni-Dimensional Opinions.’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118: 900–68.

I. Douven , and A. Rieger 2010. ‘Extending the Hegselmann-Krause Model I.’ Logic Journal of the IGPL, 18(2): 323–35.

A. Goldman 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

A. Goldman 2001. ‘Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1): 85110.

A. Goldman 2006. ‘Social Epistemology, Theory of Evidence, and Intelligent Design: Deciding What to Teach.’ Southern Journal of Philosophy, 44: 122.

R. Hegselmann , and U. Krause 2005. ‘Opinion Dynamics Driven by Various Ways of Averaging.’ Computational Economics, 25(4): 381405.

C. Insole 2000. ‘Seeing off the Local Threat to Irreducible Knowledge by Testimony.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 50 (198): 4456.

J. Lackey and E. Sosa (eds) 2006. The Epistemology of Testimony. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

K. Lehrer , and C. Wagner 1981. Rational Consensus in Science and Society: A Philosophical and Mathematical Study. Dordrecht: Reidel.

J. Norton 2003. ‘A Material Theory of Induction.’ Philosophy of Science, 70: 647–70.

R. T. Pennock 2011. ‘Can't Philosophers Tell the Difference between Science and Religion? Demarcation Revisited.’ Synthese, 178(2): 177206.

L. Rendell 2010. ‘Why Copy Others? Insights from the Social Learning Strategies Tournament.’ Science, 328: 208–13.

W. C. Salmon 1957. ‘Should we Attempt to Justify Induction?Philosophical Studies, 8(3): 45–7.

G. Schurz 2008. ‘The Meta-Inductivist's Winning Strategy in the Prediction Game: A New Approach to Hume's Problem.’ Philosophy of Science, 75: 278305.

G. Schurz 2012. ‘Meta-Induction and the Problem of Fundamental Disagreement.’ In C. Jäger and W. Löffler (eds), Epistemology: Contexts, Values, Disagreement. Frankfurt/M.: Ontos.

K. Zollmann 2012. ‘Social Network Structure and the Achievement of Consensus.’ Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, 11(1): 2644.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Episteme
  • ISSN: 1742-3600
  • EISSN: 1750-0117
  • URL: /core/journals/episteme
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 7 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 100 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 28th June 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.