Abstract
The aggregation of individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective decision on the same propositions is called judgment aggregation. Literature in social choice and political theory has claimed that judgment aggregation raises serious concerns. For example, consider a set of premises and a conclusion where the latter is logically equivalent to the former. When majority voting is applied to some propositions (the premises) it may give a different outcome than majority voting applied to another set of propositions (the conclusion). This problem is known as the discursive dilemma (or paradox). The discursive dilemma is a serious problem since it is not clear whether a collective outcome exists in these cases, and if it does, what it is like. Moreover, the two suggested escape-routes from the paradox—the so-called premise-based procedure and the conclusion-based procedure—are not, as I will show, satisfactory methods for group decision-making. In this paper I introduce a new aggregation procedure inspired by an operator defined in artificial intelligence in order to merge belief bases. The result is that we do not need to worry about paradoxical outcomes, since these arise only when inconsistent collective judgments are not ruled out from the set of possible solutions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baral C., Kraus S., Minker J., Subrahmanian V.S. (1992). Combining knowledge bases consisting of first-order theories. Computational Intelligence, 8(1): 45–71
Benferhat S., Dubois D., Prade H., Williams M.A. (1999). A practical approach to fusing prioritized knowledge bases. EPIA, 1999: 223–236
Borgida A., Imielinski T. (1984). Decision making in committees: A framework for dealing with inconsistency and non-monotonocity. In Proceedings workshop on nonmonotonic reasoning (pp. 21–32).
Bovens L., Rabinowicz W. (2006). Democratic answers to complex questions An epistemic. Synthese, 150, 131–153
Brams S.J., Kilgour D.M., Sanver M.R. (2004). A minimax procedure for negotiating multilateral treaties. preprint Department of Politics, New York University
Brennan G. (2001). Collective coherence?. International Review of Law and Economics, 21(2): 197–211
Chapman B. (1998). More easily done than said: Rules, reason and rational choice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 18: 293–330
Chapman B. (2002). Rational aggregation. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 1(3): 337–354
Cholvy L. (1994). A logical approach to multi-sources reasoning. In: Masuch M., Polos L. (Eds), Knowledge representation and reasoning under uncertainty: Logic at work. Springer, LNAI 808, pp. 183–196
Dietrich F. (2006). Judgment aggregation: (Im)possibility theorems. Journal of Economic Theory, 126(1): 286–298
Dietrich F., List C. (2004). A liberal paradox for judgment aggregation. Economics Working Paper Archive at WUSTL, http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwppe/0405003.html
Dietrich F., List C. (2006). Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare, forthcoming.
Dokow E., Holzman R. (2005). Aggregation of binary evaluations, Working paper, Technion, Israel. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/LIST/doctrinalparadox.htm
Eckert D., Pigozzi G. (2005). Belief merging, judgment aggregation, and some links with social choice theory. In J. Delgrande J. Lang H. Rott, J. M. Tallon, (Eds.), Belief change in rational agents: Perspectives from artificial intelligence, philosophy, and economics, Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 05321, Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum (IBFI), http://drops. dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2005/333/pdf/05321.PigozziGabriella1.Paper.333.pdf
Elster J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Gärdenfors P. (1988). Knowledge in flux: Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. The MIT Press.
Gärdenfors P. (2005). An Arrow-like theorem for voting with logical consequences. Economics and Philosophy, forthcoming.
Konieczny S. (1999). Sur la Logique du Changement: Révision et Fusion de Bases de Connaissance, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lille I, France.
Konieczny S. (2000). On the difference between merging knowledge bases and combinig them. In Proceedings of KR’00 (pp. 135–144). Morgan Kaufmann, Breckenridge, Colorado, USA.
Konieczny S., Lang J., Marquis P. (2004). DA2 merging operators. Artificial Intelligence, 157: 49–79
Konieczny S., Pino-Pérez R. (1998). On the logic of merging. In Proceedings of KR’98 Morgan Kaufmann.
Konieczny S., Pino-Pérez R. (1999). Merging with integrity constraints. In Proceedings of (pp. 233–244). LNAI 1638.
Konieczny S., Pino-Pérez R. (2002a). Merging information under constraints: A logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(5): 773–808
Konieczny S., Pino-Pérez R. (2002b). On the frontier between arbitration and majority. In Proceedings of the eight international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR ’02) (pp. 109–118).
Konieczny S., Pino-Pérez R. (2005). Propositional belief base merging or how to merge beliefs/goals coming from several sources and some links with social choice theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 160(3): 785–802
Kornhauser L.A. (1992). Modeling collegial courts II. Legal doctrine. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 8, 441–470
Kornhauser L.A., Sager L.G. (1986). Unpacking the court. Yale Law Journal, 96, 82–117
Kornhauser L.A., Sager L.G. (1993). The one and the many: Adjudication in collegial courts. California Law Review, 81, 1–51
Kowalski R. (1978). Logic for data description. In: Minker H.G.J., (Ed), Logic and data bases. New York, Plenum, pp. 77–102
Liberatore P., Schaerf M. (2000). Brels: A system for the integration of knowledge bases. In Proceedings of KR 2000 (pp. 145–152).
Lin J. (1996). Integration of weighted knowledge bases. Artificial Intelligence, 83, 363–378
Lin J., Mendelzon A. (1996). Merging databases under constraints. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 7, 55–76
Lin J., Mendelzon A. (1999). Knowledge base merging by majority. In: Pareschi R., Fronhoefer B. (Eds), Dynamic worlds: From the frame problem to knowledge management. Kluwer.
List C. (2005). The probability of inconsistencies in complex collective decisions. Social Choice and Welfare, 24(1): 3–32
List C. (2006a). Judgment aggregation—A bibliography on the discursive dilemma, the doctrinal paradox and decisions on multiple propositions. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/LIST/doctrinalparadox.htm
List C. (2006b). The discursive dilemma and public reason. Ethics, 116(2): 362–402
List C., Pettit P. (2002). Aggregating sets of judgments. An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy, 18, 89–110
List C., Pettit P. (2004). Aggregating sets of judgments. Two impossibility results compared. 140, 207–235
Maynard-Reid P., Shoham Y. (1998). From belief revision to belief fusion. In Proceedings of the third conference on logic and the foundations of game and decision theory (LOFT3), ICER, Torino, Italy.
Nehring K., Puppe C. (2005). Consistent judgment aggregation: A characterization. Working paper. University of Karlsruhe.
Pauly M., van Hees M. (2006). Logical constraints on judgment aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 35
Pettit P. (2001). Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues, 11, 268–299
Pigozzi G. (2005). Two aggregation paradoxes in social decision making: The Ostrogorski paradox and the discursive dilemma. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 2(2): 33–42
Reiter R. (1988). On integrity constraints. In: Vardi M.Y. (Eds), Proceedings of the second conference on the theoretical aspects of reasoning about knowledge. San Francisco Calif, Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 97–111
Revesz P. (1997). On the semantics of arbitration. International Journal of Algebra and Computation, 7(2): 133–160
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pigozzi, G. Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation. Synthese 152, 285–298 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9063-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9063-7