David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The theory of belief revision and merging has recently been applied to judgement aggregation. In this paper I argue that judgements are best aggregated by merging the evidence on which they are based, rather than by directly merging the judgements themselves. This leads to a threestep strategy for judgement aggregation. First, merge the evidence bases of the various agents using some method of belief merging. Second, determine which degrees of belief one should adopt on the basis of this merged evidence base, by applying objective Bayesian theory. Third, determine which judgements are appropriate given these degrees of belief by applying a decision-theoretic account of rational judgement formation.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Arianna Betti & Maria van der Schaar (2004). The Road From Vienna to Lvov: Twardowski's Theory of Judgement Between 1894 and 1897. Grazer Philosophische Studien 67 (1):1-20.
Alberto Vanzo (2012). Kant on Truth-Aptness. History and Philosophy of Logic 33 (2):109-126.
Stephan Hartmann & Gabriella Pigozzi (2006). Merging Judgments and the Problem of Truth-Tracking. In Jerome Lang & Ulle Endriss (eds.), Computational Social Choice 2006. University of Amsterdam.
Giuseppe Primiero & Joke Meheus (2008). Majority Merging by Adaptive Counting. Synthese 165 (2):203 - 223.
Marc Pauly & Martin van Hees (2006). Logical Constraints on Judgement Aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (6):569 - 585.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #126,642 of 1,006,483 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,735 of 1,006,483 )
How can I increase my downloads?