Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:12:55.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epistemic Value Theory and Judgment Aggregation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Don Fallis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We frequently make judgments about the world. Juries make judgments about whether defendants are guilty. Umpires make judgments about whether pitches are strikes. Tenure committees make judgments about whether professors deserve tenure. We typically want these judgments about the world to have good epistemic properties. We would like our judgments to be true rather than false, for example. We would also like our judgments to be consistent with each other; and we would like to have good reasons for our judgments. This paper will be concerned with how we can make judgments that have such good epistemic properties.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , June 2005 , pp. 39 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alston, William P. (1985). Concepts of epistemic justification. Monist 68:57–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azzouni, Jody (2003). The strengthened liar, the expressive strength of natural languages, and regimentation. Philosophical Forum 34:329–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BonJour, Laurence (1985). The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
Bovens, Luc & Rabinowicz, Wlodek (2004). Voting procedures for complex collective decisions: An epistemic perspective Ratio Juris 17:241–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, John (2004). Weighing Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Bryson (1990). How to be realistic about inconsistency in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21:281–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Bryson (1999). Adjunction and aggregation. Nous 33:273–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, Roderick (1977). Theory of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Descartes, René (1996). Meditations on First Philosophy. ed. Cottingham, John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, David M. (1994). Opinion leaders, independence, and Condorcet's jury theorem. Theory and Decision 36:131–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallis, Don (1997). The epistemic status of probabilistic proof. Journal of Philosophy 94:165–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallis, Don (2002). Goldman on probabilistic inference. Philosophical Studies 109:223–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fallis, Don (2004). Epistemic value theory and information ethics. Minds and Machines 14:101–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, Hartry (1982). Realism and relativism. Journal of Philosophy 79:553–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, Richard (1993). Working Without a Net. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret (1994). Remarks on collective belief in Socializing Epistemology, ed. Schmitt, Frederick F.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield (pp. 235–56).Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter (1991). Signal, decision, action. Journal of Philosophy 88:709–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin (1999). Knowledge in a Social World. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin (2001). The unity of the epistemic virtues in Virtue Epistemology, eds. Fairweather, Abrol & Zagzebski, Linda. New York: Oxford University Press. (pp. 30–48).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, James (1986). Well-Being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert (1986). Change in View. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David (1977). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. ed. Steinberg, Eric. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
James, William (1979). The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. (1956). Valuation and acceptance of scientific hypotheses. Philosophy of Science 23:237–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, R. (1987). Alias Smith and Jones: The testimony of the senses. Erkenntnis 26:391–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Mark (1996). Decision Theory As Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Mark (2002). Decision theory and epistemology in The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, ed. Moser, Paul K.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (pp. 434–62).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, Ralph L. (1992). Value-Focused Thinking. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas (2003). Epistemic rationality as instrumental rationality: A critique. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66:612–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1992). The naturalists return. Philosophical Review 101:53–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (2001). Knowledge and tradition. Philosophical Topics 29:251–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Peter (1985). The virtues of inconsistency. Monist 68:105–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Peter (forthcoming). Useful falsehoods in Epistemology, ed. Smith, Quentin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knight, Kevin (2002). Measuring inconsistency. Journal of Philosophical Logic 31:77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis A. & Sager, Lawrence G. (1993). The one and the many: Adjudication in collegial courts California Law Review 81:1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, Saul A. (1979). A puzzle about belief in Meaning and Use, ed. Margalit, Avishai. Dordrecht: D. Reidel (pp. 239–83).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvanvig, Jonathan L. (1998). Why should inquiring minds want to know?: Meno problems and epistemological axiology. Monist 81:426–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyburg, Henry E. (1970). Conjunctivitis in Induction, Acceptance, and Rational Belief, ed. Swain, Marshall. Dordrect: D. Reidel (pp. 55–82).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Keith (1975). Reason and consistency in Analysis and Metaphysics, ed. Lehrer, Keith. Dordrecht: Reidel (pp. 57–74).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Isaac (1962). On the seriousness of mistakes. Philosophy of Science 29:47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Isaac (2004). List and Pettit. Synthese 140:237–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, Christian (forthcoming). The discursive dilemma and public reason. Ethics.Google Scholar
List, Christian & Pettit, Philip (2005). On the many as one: A reply to Kornhauser and Sager. Philosophy and Public Affairs 33: 377–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, Patrick (1993). Betting on Theories. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makinson, D. C. (1965). The paradox of the preface. Analysis 25:205–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, Robert (1993). The Nature of Rationality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, R. W. K. (1979). Towards an axiology of knowledge. Journal of Philosophy of Education 13:91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Philip (2001). Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues 11:268–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Philip (2003). Groups with minds of their own in Socializing Metaphysics, ed. Schmitt, Frederick F.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield (pp. 167–93).Google Scholar
Pollock, John L. (1994). Justification and defeat. Artificial Intelligence 67:377–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, Graham (1998). What is so bad about contradictions? Journal of Philosophy 95:410–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas (1988). Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Resnik, Michael D. (1987). Choices. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Russell, J. S. (2004). Taking umpiring seriously: How philosophy can help umpires make the right calls in Baseball and Philosophy, ed. Bronson, Eric. Chicago: Open Court (pp. 87–103).Google Scholar
Sorensen, Roy A. (1988). Blindspots. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel (1982). Evidential impact of base rates in Judgment Under Uncertainty, eds. Kahneman, Daniel, Slovic, Paul, & Tversky, Amos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (pp. 153–60).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van, Fraassen Bas (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Warnken, Byron & Samuels, Elizabeth (1997). The types of opinions issued http://academic.udayton.edu/legaled/online/class/case08.htm.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1976). Wittgenstein's Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics. ed. Diamond, Cora. Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, Linda (2003). The search for the source of epistemic good. Metaphilosophy 34:12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar