Williamson, J. (2009) Aggregating judgements by merging evidence. Journal of Logic and Computation, 19 (3). pp. 461-473. ISSN 0955-792X .
|The full text of this publication is not available from this repository. (Contact us about this Publication)|
The theory of belief revision and merging has recently been applied to judgement aggregation. In this paper I argue that judgements are best aggregated by merging the evidence on which they are based, rather than by directly merging the judgements themselves. This leads to a three-step strategy for judgement aggregation. First, merge the evidence bases of the various agents using some method of belief merging. Second, determine which degrees of belief one should adopt on the basis of this merged evidence base, by applying objective Bayesian theory. Third, determine which judgements are appropriate given these degrees of belief by applying a decision-theoretic account of rational judgement formation.
|Additional information:||8th Conference on Connections between Belief Revision, Belief Merging and Social Choice London, ENGLAND, NOV, 2006|
|Uncontrolled keywords:||Judgement aggregation; belief merging; belief revision; objective Bayesianism; decision theory; maximum entropy|
|Subjects:||B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > B Philosophy (General)|
|Divisions:||Faculties > Humanities > School of European Culture and Languages|
|Depositing User:||Jon Williamson|
|Date Deposited:||25 Jan 2010 10:50|
|Last Modified:||20 Jan 2012 15:04|
|Resource URI:||http://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/20879 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)|
- Depositors only (login required):