David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
We consider a panel of experts asked to assign probabilities to events, both logically simple and complex. The events evaluated by different experts are based on overlapping sets of variables but may otherwise be distinct. The union of all the judgments will likely be probabilistic incoherent. We address the problem of revising the probability estimates of the panel so as to produce a coherent set that best represents the group’s expertise.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robert M. Veatch (1991). Consensus of Expertise: The Role of Consensus of Experts in Formulating Public Policy and Estimating Facts. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (4):427-445.
David H. Krantz, Daniel Osherson & Nicolao Bonini, The Relation Between Probability and Evidence Judgment: An Extension of Support Theory*†.
Guanchun Wang, Sanjeev Kulkarni & Daniel N. Osherson, Improving Aggregated Forecasts of Probability.
Jiaying Zhao, Anuj Shah & Daniel Osherson (2009). On the Provenance of Judgments of Conditional Probability. Cognition 113 (1):26-36.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #272,916 of 1,168,025 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #140,420 of 1,168,025 )
How can I increase my downloads?