Lehrer and the consensus proposal

Laddaga, Robert

doi:10.1007/bf00486109

Cited by 32 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To provide only some examples, the assumption that the model is about factual disagreement is made in Laddaga (1977), Lehrer (1983) and Loewer and Laddaga (1985). Our criticisms above are based on this assumption, too.…”

Section: Non-factual Disagreementsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Resolving Disagreement Through Mutual Respect

Martini

Sprenger

Colyvan

2012

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the scope and limits of rational consensus through mutual respect, with the primary focus on the best known formal model of consensus: the Lehrer-Wagner model. We consider various arguments against the rationality of the Lehrer-Wagner model as a model of consensus about factual matters. We conclude that models such as this face problems in achieving rational consensus on disagreements about unknown factual matters, but that they hold considerable promise as models of how to rationally resolve non-factual disagreements.

show abstract

Section: Non-factual Disagreementsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Resolving Disagreement Through Mutual Respect

Martini

Sprenger

Colyvan

2012

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…is then of the form (6) Incidentally, combination rule (7) provides an example of a pooling operator that preserves independence in the sense of Laddaga [18], that is, which is such that property is otherwise generally known to lead to dictatorships, as demonstrated under various conditions by Lehrer and Wagner [19], Genest [10], and Genest and Wagner [14], We might also remark that independence preservation always obtains for the logarithmic opinion pool (6), despite the fact that the latter is not necessarily a probability measure.…”

Section: Pn)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditionalization and Likelihood Dominance in Group Belief Formation

Genest¹,

Weerahandi²,

Zidek³

1990

Statistics &Amp; Risk Modeling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the group synthesis problem from a normative standpoint. The axiomatic construction of a subjective distribution discussed by DeGroot (1970) is adapted to derive a pooling formula for the probabilistic opinions of a number of agents over a discrete space. Assuming a version of the Pareto Principle for consensual choice and the existence of an independent, auxiliary experiment whose outcome is jointly perceived to be uniformly distributed on the unit interval, it is shown that the group belief can be represented by a non-normalized, weighted geometric average of the individuals' probability assessments.

show abstract

“…At the outset, a question arises regarding what has been called in [9] the "prior theoretical commitment" that an expert may or may not have towards his/her various statements of independence. It has been argued in [10] that in situations where individuals elicit their subjective distributions by assigning a relative likelihood to each of a finite number of alternatives, "the independence of certain compounds of these propositions is largely fortuitous" [10, p. 343].…”

Section: Heuristics Against Independence Preservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, this anomaly cannot occur if option (II) is selected and if you average probabilities at the joint level using a weighted arithmetic mean. Yet, independence preservation is favoured in [ t6] and recommended explicitly in [9] and [11]. These authors and probably many others would argue that when a group of experts shares a "prior theoretical commitment" to independence, it would be wrong for the decison maker to ignore such an epistemicatly significant feature of the group's opinions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Further evidence against independence preservation in expert judgement synthesis

Genest

Wagner

1987

Aeq. Math.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. When a decision maker chooses to form his/her own probability distribution by combining the opinions of a number of experts, it is sometimes recommended that he/she should do so in such a way as to preserve any form of expert agreement regarding the independence of the events of interest. In this paper, we argue against this recommendation. We show that for those probability spaces which contain at least five points, a large class of seemingly reasonable combination methods excludes all independence preserving formulas except those which pick a single expert. In the case where at most four alternatives are present, the same conditions admit a richer variety of non-dictatorial methods which we also characterize. In the discussion, we give our reasons for rejecting independence preservation in expert judgement synthesis.

show abstract

Lehrer and the consensus proposal

Cited by 32 publications

References 0 publications

Resolving Disagreement Through Mutual Respect

Resolving Disagreement Through Mutual Respect

Conditionalization and Likelihood Dominance in Group Belief Formation

Further evidence against independence preservation in expert judgement synthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About