Another Approach to Consensus and Maximally Informed Opinions with Increasing Evidence

Philosophy of Science (2):236-254 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Merging of opinions results underwrite Bayesian rejoinders to complaints about the subjective nature of personal probability. Such results establish that sufficiently similar priors achieve consensus in the long run when fed the same increasing stream of evidence. Initial subjectivity, the line goes, is of mere transient significance, giving way to intersubjective agreement eventually. Here, we establish a merging result for sets of probability measures that are updated by Jeffrey conditioning. This generalizes a number of different merging results in the literature. We also show that such sets converge to a shared, maximally informed opinion. Convergence to a maximally informed opinion is a (weak) Jeffrey conditioning analogue of Bayesian “convergence to the truth” for conditional probabilities. Finally, we demonstrate the philosophical significance of our study by detailing applications to the topics of dynamic coherence, imprecise probabilities, and probabilistic opinion pooling.
Reprint years
2019
PhilPapers/Archive ID
STEAAT-28
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-06-01
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Persistent Disagreement and Polarization in a Bayesian Setting.Michael Nielsen & Rush T. Stewart - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2018-06-01

Total views
89 ( #24,788 of 39,634 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
48 ( #9,932 of 39,634 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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