This paper focuses on the question of how to resolve disagreement, and uses the Lehrer-Wagner model as a formal tool for investigating consensual decision-making. The main result consists in a general definition of when agents treat each other as epistemic peers (Kelly 2005; Elga 2007), and a theorem vindicating the “equal weight view” to resolve disagreement among epistemic peers. We apply our findings to an analysis of the impact of social network structures on group deliberation processes, and we demonstrate their stability with the help of numerical simulations.
As groups grow in size, they gain access to additional resources, creating opportunities for collect...
In real world scenarios, the formation of consensus is an self-organisation process by which actors ...
While modeling group decision making scenarios, the existence of a central authority is often assume...
How do groups reach a collective decision? One option is to apply some voting scheme and aggregate t...
In this paper we propose and analyze a game-theoretic model of the epistemology of peer disagreement...
This work aims to investigate the consequences of disagreement between experts on the epistemic perf...
A popular view in mainstream social epistemology maintains that, in the face of a revealed peer disa...
Epistemologists have recently debated how we should respond to apparent cases of rational disagreeme...
While it seems hard to deny the epistemic significance of a disagreement with our acknowledged epist...
Conciliatory theories of disagreement require that one lower one’s confidence in a belief in the fac...
This paper proposes a methodological turn for the epistemology of disagreement, away from focusing o...
This paper applies the theory of networks to the problem of how agents should assign weights to othe...
The present work explores improvements in group decision-making. It begins with a practical example...
This is an introduction to the volume The Epistemology of Group Disagreement (Routledge, forthcoming...
Deliberation is a standard procedure for making decisions in not too large groups. It has the advant...
As groups grow in size, they gain access to additional resources, creating opportunities for collect...
In real world scenarios, the formation of consensus is an self-organisation process by which actors ...
While modeling group decision making scenarios, the existence of a central authority is often assume...
How do groups reach a collective decision? One option is to apply some voting scheme and aggregate t...
In this paper we propose and analyze a game-theoretic model of the epistemology of peer disagreement...
This work aims to investigate the consequences of disagreement between experts on the epistemic perf...
A popular view in mainstream social epistemology maintains that, in the face of a revealed peer disa...
Epistemologists have recently debated how we should respond to apparent cases of rational disagreeme...
While it seems hard to deny the epistemic significance of a disagreement with our acknowledged epist...
Conciliatory theories of disagreement require that one lower one’s confidence in a belief in the fac...
This paper proposes a methodological turn for the epistemology of disagreement, away from focusing o...
This paper applies the theory of networks to the problem of how agents should assign weights to othe...
The present work explores improvements in group decision-making. It begins with a practical example...
This is an introduction to the volume The Epistemology of Group Disagreement (Routledge, forthcoming...
Deliberation is a standard procedure for making decisions in not too large groups. It has the advant...
As groups grow in size, they gain access to additional resources, creating opportunities for collect...
In real world scenarios, the formation of consensus is an self-organisation process by which actors ...
While modeling group decision making scenarios, the existence of a central authority is often assume...