A pragmatic argument against equal weighting

Synthese 196 (10):4211-4227 (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
We present a minimal pragmatic restriction on the interpretation of the weights in the “Equal Weight View” regarding peer disagreement and show that the view cannot respect it. Based on this result we argue against the view. The restriction is the following one: if an agent, $$\hbox {i}$$ i, assigns an equal or higher weight to another agent, $$\hbox {j}$$ j,, he must be willing—in exchange for a positive and certain payment—to accept an offer to let a completely rational and sympathetic $$\hbox {j}$$ j choose for him whether to accept a bet with positive expected utility. If $$\hbox {i}$$ i assigns a lower weight to $$\hbox {j}$$ j than to himself, he must not be willing to pay any positive price for letting $$\hbox {j}$$ j choose for him. Respecting the constraint entails, we show, that the impact of disagreement on one’s degree of belief is not independent of what the disagreement is discovered to be.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-12-14
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Probabilistic Opinion Pooling.Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian
What is the “Equal Weight View'?Fitelson, Branden & Jehle, David

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
What the "Equal Weight View" Is.McCutcheon, Randall G.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
242 ( #17,219 of 47,400 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
72 ( #9,374 of 47,400 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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