Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. An impossibility theorem for amalgamating evidence.Jacob Stegenga - 2013 - Synthese 190 (12):2391-2411.
    Amalgamating evidence of different kinds for the same hypothesis into an overall confirmation is analogous, I argue, to amalgamating individuals’ preferences into a group preference. The latter faces well-known impossibility theorems, most famously “Arrow’s Theorem”. Once the analogy between amalgamating evidence and amalgamating preferences is tight, it is obvious that amalgamating evidence might face a theorem similar to Arrow’s. I prove that this is so, and end by discussing the plausibility of the axioms required for the theorem.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Problems with electoral evaluations of expert opinions.Roy A. Sorensen - 1984 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35 (1):47-53.
    An electoral evaluation of a set of expert opinions proceeds by treating the experts as voters. Although this method allows us to formalise our naive views about how to take expert advice, the formalisations are plagued by paradoxes which parallel those found in literature on social aggregation devices. This parallel suggests that our naive views about taking expert advice are in as much need of revision as our naive views about deriving group preferences from individual preferences. * I am indebted (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Robust Beauty of Majority Rules in Group Decisions.Reid Hastie & Tatsuya Kameda - 2005 - Psychological Review 112 (2):494-508.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Interpersonal comparisons of utility: Why and how they are and should be made.Peter J. Hammond - 1991 - In Jon Elster & John E. Roemer (eds.), Interpersonal comparisons of well-being. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 200--254.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  • (1 other version)Infinite Regress Arguments.Anna-Sofia Maurin - 2013 - In Christer Svennerlind, Almäng Jan & Rögnvaldur Ingthorsson (eds.), Johanssonian Investigations: Essays in Honour of Ingvar Johansson on His Seventieth Birthday. Ontos Verlag. pp. 5--421.
    According to Johansson (2009: 22) an infinite regress is vicious just in case “what comes first [in the regress-order] is for its definition dependent on what comes afterwards.” Given a few qualifications (to be spelled out below (section 3)), I agree. Again according to Johansson (ibid.), one of the consequences of accepting this way of distinguishing vicious from benign regresses is that the so-called Russellian Resemblance Regress (RRR), if generated in a one-category trope-theoretical framework, is vicious and that, therefore, the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations