Challenging the Majority Rule in Matters of Truth

Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 7 (2):54-72 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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.

Author's Profile

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-09-27

Downloads
571 (#25,672)

6 months
65 (#58,509)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?