Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zklqj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T16:59:22.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MERGING OF OPINIONS AND PROBABILITY KINEMATICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2015

SIMON M. HUTTEGGER
SIMON M. HUTTEGGER*
Affiliation:
Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of California at Irvine
*
*DEPARTMENT OF LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE SOCIAL SCIENCE PLAZA A IRVINE, CA-92697, USA E-mail: shuttegg@uci.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We explore the question of whether sustained rational disagreement is possible from a broadly Bayesian perspective. The setting is one where agents update on the same information, with special consideration being given to the case of uncertain information. The classical merging of opinions theorem of Blackwell and Dubins shows when updated beliefs come and stay closer for Bayesian conditioning. We extend this result to a type of Jeffrey conditioning where agents update on evidence that is uncertain but solid (hard Jeffrey shifts). However, merging of beliefs does not generally hold for Jeffrey conditioning on evidence that is fluid (soft Jeffrey shifts, Field shifts). Several theorems on the asymptotic behavior of subjective probabilities are proven. Taken together they show that while a consensus nearly always emerges in important special cases, sustained rational disagreement can be expected in many other situations.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 611 - 648
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2015 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armendt, B. (1980). Is there a Dutch book argument for probability kinematics? Philosophy of Science, 47, 583–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ash, R. B. (2000). Probability and Measure Theory. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Aumann, R. J. (1976). Agreeing to disagree. The Annals of Statistics, 4, 1236–1239.Google Scholar
Billingsley, P. (2008). Probability and Measure. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Blackwell, D., & Dubins, L. (1962). Merging of opinions with increasing information. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 33, 882–886.Google Scholar
Blackwell, D., & Dubins, L. (1975). On existence and non-existence of proper, regular, conditional distributions. Annals of Probability, 3, 741–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, D., & Girshick, M. A. (1954). Theory of Games and Statistical Decisions. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. (2005). Radical probabilism and Bayesian conditioning. Philosophy of Science, 72, 342–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1950). Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1971). A basic system of inductive logic, part 1. In Carnap, R., and Jeffrey, R. C., editors. Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability I. Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 33–165.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1980). A basic system of inductive logic, part 2. In Jeffrey, R. C., editor. Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability II. Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 7–155.Google Scholar
Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is This Thing Called Science. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (1991). Clever bookies and coherent beliefs. Philosophical Review, 100, 229–247.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (2007). Epistemology of disagreement: The good news. Philosophical Review, 116, 187–217.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (2009). Disagreement as evidence: The epistemology of controversy. Philosophy Compass, 4/5, 756–767.Google Scholar
D’Aristotile, A., Diaconis, P., & Freedman, D. (1988). On merging of probabilities. Sankhiā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, 50, 363–380.Google Scholar
de Finetti, B. (1937). La prevision: ses lois logiques ses sources subjectives. Annales d l’institut Henri Poincaré, 7, 1–68. Translated in Kyburg, H. E., and Smokler, H. E., editors. (1964). Studies in Subjective Probability. New York: Wiley, pp. 93–158.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1929). The Quest for Certainty. New York: Minton Balch.Google Scholar
Diaconis, P., & Freedman, D. (1986). On the consistency of Bayes estimates. Annals of Statistics, 14, 1–26.Google Scholar
Diaconis, P., & Zabell, S. L. (1982). Updating subjective probability. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77, 822–830.Google Scholar
Döring, F. (1999). Why Bayesian psychology is incomplete. Philosophy of Science, 66, 379–389.Google Scholar
Dubins, L. (1975). Finitely additive conditional probabilities, conglomerability, and disintegration. Annals of Probability, 3, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. (1992). Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Easwaran, K. (2013). Expected accuracy supports conditionalization—and conglomerability and reflection. Philosophy of Science, 80, 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, A. (2007). Reflection and disagreement. Noûs, 41, 478–502.Google Scholar
Field, H. (1978). A note on Jeffrey conditionalization. Philosophy of Science, 45, 361–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaifman, H., & Snir, M. (1982). Probabilities over rich languages, testing and randomness. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 47, 495–548.Google Scholar
Goldstein, M. (1983). The prevision of a prevision. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78, 817–819.Google Scholar
Good, I. J. (1950). Probability and the Weighing of Evidence. London: Charles Griffin.Google Scholar
Good, I. J. (1983). Good Thinking. The Foundations of Probability and Its Applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Greaves, H., & Wallace, D. (2006). Justifying conditionalization: Conditionalization maximizes expected epistemic utility. Mind, 115, 607–632.Google Scholar
Gutting, G. (1982). Religious Belief and Religious Scepticism. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (1993). Scientific Reasoning. The Bayesian Approach (second edition). La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.Google Scholar
Huttegger, S. M. (2013). In defense of reflection. Philosophy of Science, 80, 413–433.Google Scholar
Huttegger, S. M. (2014). Learning experiences and the value of knowledge. Philosophical Studies, 171, 279–288.Google Scholar
Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability Theory. The Logic of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (1957). Contributions to the theory of inductive probability. PhD Dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (1965). The Logic of Decision. New York: McGraw-Hill. Third revised edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (1968). Probable knowledge. In Lakatos, I., editor. The Problem of Inductive Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 166–180.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (1987). Alias Smith and Jones: The testimony of the senses. Erkenntnis, 26, 391–399.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (1988). Conditioning, kinematics, and exchangeability. In Skyrms, B., and Harper, W. L., editors. Causation, Chance, and Credence, Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 221–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (1992). Probability and the Art of Judgement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. M. (2007). Epistemic deference: The case of chance. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 107, 187–206.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. M. (2010). The development of subjective Bayesianism. In Gabbay, D. M., Hartmann, S., and Woods, J., editors. Handbook of the History of Logic, Vol. 10: Inductive Logic. Elsevier, pp. 415–476.Google Scholar
Kadane, J. B., Schervish, M. J., & Seidenfeld, T. (1996). Reasoning to a foregone conclusion. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 1228–1236.Google Scholar
Kalai, E., & Lehrer, E. (1994). Weak and strong merging of opinions. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 23, 73–86.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. (2005). The epistemic significance of disagreement. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 1, 167–196.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. (2008). Disagreement, dogmatism, and belief polarization. Journal of Philosophy, 105, 611–633.Google Scholar
Lange, M. (2000). Is Jeffrey conditionalization defective in virtue of being non-commutative? Remarks on the sameness of sensory experiences. Synthese, 93, 393–403.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K., & Wagner, C. G. (1981). Rational Consensus in Science and Society: A Philosophical and Mathematical Study. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Leitgeb, H., & Pettigrew, R. (2010). An objective justification of Bayesianism II: The consequences of minimizing inaccuracy. Philosophy of Science, 77, 236–272.Google Scholar
Levi, I. (1980). The Enterprise of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levi, I. (1987). The demons of decision. The Monist, 70, 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, P. (1992). Diachronic rationality. Philosophy of Science, 59, 120–141.Google Scholar
Mongin, P. (1995). Consistent Bayesian aggregation. Journal of Economic Theory, 66, 313–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. (1997). The Fixation of Belief. New York: Vintage Books, pp. 7–25. Originally published in 1878.Google Scholar
Purves, R. A., & Sudderth, W. D. (1976). Some finitely additive probability. The Annals of Probability, 4, 259–276.Google Scholar
Savage, L. J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Schervish, M. J., & Seidenfeld, T. (1990). An approach to consensus and certainty with increasing information. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 25, 401–414.Google Scholar
Seidenfeld, T. (1985). Calibration, coherence, and scoring rules. Philosophy of Science, 52, 274–294.Google Scholar
Seidenfeld, T. (1987). Entropy and Uncertainty. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Seidenfeld, T. (2001). Remarks on the theory of conditional probability: Some issues of finite versus countable additivity. In Hendricks, V. F., editor. Probability Theory. Kluwer, pp. 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenfeld, T., Kadane, J. B., & Schervish, M. J. (1989). On the shared preferences of two Bayesian decision makers. Journal of Philosophy, 86, 225–244.Google Scholar
Seidenfeld, T., Schervish, M. J., & Kadane, J. B. (2014). Non-conglomerability for countably additive measures that are not κ-additive. Manuscript CMU.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1985). Maximum entropy inference as a special case of conditionalization. Synthese, 63, 55–74.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1987a). Dynamic coherence. In MacNeill, B., and Umphrey, G., editors. Advances in the Statistical Sciences VII. Foundations of Statistical Inference. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 233–243.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1987b). Dynamic coherence and probability kinematics. Philosophy of Science, 54, 1–20.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1990). The Dynamics of Rational Deliberation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1997). The structure of radical probabilism. Erkenntnis, 45, 285–297.Google Scholar
Talbott, W. (1991). Two principles of Bayesian epistemology. Philosophical Studies, 62, 135–150.Google Scholar
Teller, P. (1973). Conditionalization and observation. Synthese, 26, 218–258.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). Rational belief and probability kinematics. Philosophy of Science, 47, 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1984). Belief and the will. Journal of Philosophy, 81, 235–256.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1995). Belief and the problem of Ulysses and the Sirens. Philosophical Studies, 77, 7–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Inwagen, P. (1996). Is it wrong, everywhere, always, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence? In Jorand, J., and Howard-Snyder, D., editors. Faith, Freedom, and Rationality. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 137–153.Google Scholar
Wagner, C. G. (2002). Probability kinematics and commutativity. Philosophy of Science, 69, 266–278.Google Scholar
Zabell, S. L. (2002). It all adds up: The dynamic coherence of radical probabilism. Philosophy of Science, 69, 98–103.Google Scholar