David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Analysis 66 (291):179–187 (2006)
How sensitive should you be to the testimony of others? You saw the car that caused an accident going through trafﬁc lights on the red; or so you thought. Should you revise your belief on discovering that the majority of bystanders, equally well-equipped, equally well-positioned and equally impartial, reported that it went through on the green? Or take another case. You believe that intelligent design is the best explanation for the order of the living universe. Should you revise that belief on ﬁnding that most other people, or at least most who by your own lights are as intelligent, informed and impartial as yourself, believe that evolutionary theory offers the better account? Should you do this, in particular, if your own personal sense of where the evidence points – like your own vivid memory of the car going through on the red – remains ﬁrmly on the side of intelligent design? Assume, to take a third case, that there is a matter of fact about whether abortion is right or wrong. You believe that it is wrong, having a ﬁrm picture of it as an act on a par with murder. Should you revise that belief on discovering that among those whom you regard as equally intelligent, informed and impartial, most believe that abortion is not wrong, or at least not wrong in the way that murder is wrong? Should you do this, in particular, if your own personal sense of abortion remains unchanged; it still seems to you to be a grievous wrong? Should you put aside your own sense of things as mistaken, in the way you might put aside your imagined memory of the car going through on the red, and decide to go along with the majority view?
|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
Philip Pettit (2001). A Theory of Freedom: From the Psychology to the Politics of Agency. Oxford University Press.
Christian List & Philip Pettit (2002). Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result. Economics and Philosophy 18 (1):89-110.
Marc Pauly & Martin van Hees (2006). Logical Constraints on Judgement Aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (6):569 - 585.
David M. Estlund (1994). Opinion Leaders, Independence, and Condorcet's Jury Theorem. Theory and Decision 36 (2):131-162.
Philip Pettit (2001). Deliberative Democracy and the Discursive Dilemma. Noûs 35 (s1):268-299.
Citations of this work BETA
David Christensen (2009). Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy. Philosophy Compass 4 (5):756-767.
Christian List (2012). The Theory of Judgment Aggregation: An Introductory Review. Synthese 187 (1):179-207.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2008). Intersubjective Corroboration. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 39 (1):124-132.
Christian List (2011). Group Communication and the Transformation of Judgments: An Impossibility Result. Journal of Political Philosophy 19 (1):1-27.
Nathan L. King (2008). Religious Diversity and its Challenges to Religious Belief. Philosophy Compass 3 (4):830-853.
Similar books and articles
Charles W. Mills (2003). ``Heart'' Attack: A Critique of Jorge Garcia's Volitional Conception of Racism. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 7 (1):29-62.
Patrick A. Tully (2005). Victims of Abortion and “Victims” of Contraception. Journal of Philosophical Research 30:383-398.
John L. Pollock (1967). Non-Analytic Implication. Inquiry 10 (1-4):196 – 203.
Jeffrey Koperski (2003). Intelligent Design and the End of Science. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (4):567-588.
Jonathan Kvanvig (1986). How to Be a Reliabilist. American Philosophical Quarterly 23 (2):189 - 198.
Emanuela Ceva & Federico Zuolo, A Matter of Respect. On the Relation Between the Majority and Minorities in a Democracy.
J. Shearmur (2010). Steve Fuller and Intelligent Design. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40 (3):433-445.
Christian List (2014). When to Defer to Supermajority Testimony — and When Not. In Jennifer Lackey (ed.), Essays in Collective Epistemology. Oxford University Press
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads134 ( #27,066 of 1,792,980 )
Recent downloads (6 months)23 ( #33,832 of 1,792,980 )
How can I increase my downloads?