SAS-Space, for world class research

Latest additions

Abstract

Reliable Methods of Judgment Aggregation


The aggregation of consistent individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective judgment on the same propositions has recently drawn much attention. Seemingly reasonable aggregation procedures, such as propositionwise majority voting, cannot ensure an equally consistent collective conclusion. The literature on judgment aggregation refers to such a problem as the discursive dilemma. In this paper we assume that the decision which the group is trying to reach is factually right or wrong. Hence, the question we address in this paper is how good the various approaches are at selecting the right conclusion. We focus on two approaches: distance-based procedures and Bayesian analysis. Under the former we also subsume the conclusion- and premise-based procedures discussed in the literature. Whereas we believe the Bayesian analysis to be theoretically optimal, the distance-based approaches have more parsimonious presuppositions and are therefore easier to apply.Working paper

Hartmann, Stephan and Pigozzi, G and Sprenger, J (2007) Reliable Methods of Judgment Aggregation.


Item Type:Article
Additional Information:Citation: Philosophy of Science archive.
Subjects:Philosophy
Keywords:Decision theory, Judgment aggregation
Divisions:Institute of Philosophy
Collections:London Philosophy Papers
Deposited By:Repository Administrator
Date Deposited:08 Oct 2010 11:29
Last Modified:12 Oct 2010 07:43
ItemID:1061
Files available for downloadg
[img]
Preview
FilenameS_Hartmann_Reliable.pdf
File size341Kb
Download
License termsAvailable to public
Comments Notes Tags All

Comments

Add a Comment


Close comments

Notes

Add a Note - this will be visible to you alone, while you are logged in.

Note title [optional]:

Close notes
Tag this item (You may enter a comma separated list):
Close tags

padlock
Repository Staff Only
Item control page