Challenging the Majority Rule in Matters of Truth

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
The majority rule has caught much attention in recent debate about the aggregation of judgments. But its role in finding the truth is limited. A majority of expert judgments is not necessarily authoritative, even if all experts are equally competent, if they make their judgments independently of each other, and if all the judgments are based on the same source of (good) evidence. In this paper I demonstrate this limitation by presenting a simple counterexample and a related general result. I pave the way for this argument by introducing a Bayesian model of evidence and expert judgment in order to give a precise account of the basic problem.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-09-27
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 18 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Vindicating Methodological Triangulation.Heesen, Remco; Bright, Liam Kofi & Zucker, Andrew

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
262 ( #16,681 of 49,009 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
45 ( #15,007 of 49,009 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.