Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:40:57.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Another Approach to Consensus and Maximally Informed Opinions with Increasing Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Rush T. Stewart  and
Michael Nielsen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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. Here, we establish a merging result for sets of probability measures 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. Finally, we demonstrate the philosophical significance of our study by detailing applications to the topics of dynamic coherence, imprecise probabilities, and opinion pooling.

Type
Articles
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 86 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 236 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

†

We would like to thank Jean Baccelli, Jessica Collins, Robby Finley, Arthur Heller, Simon Huttegger, Isaac Levi, Ignacio Ojea Quintana, Teddy Seidenfeld, Reuben Stern, Greg Wheeler, an audience at the Institute of History and Philosophy of Science and Technology in Paris, and two anonymous referees for generous feedback that helped us to improve the article.

References

Belot, G. 2013. “Bayesian Orgulity.” Philosophy of Science 80 (4): 483–503..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billingsley, P. 2008. Probability and Measure. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Blackwell, D., and Dubins, L. E.. 1962. “Merging of Opinions with Increasing Information.” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 33 (3): 882–86..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, D., and Dubins, L. E.. 1975. “On Existence and Non-existence of Proper, Regular, Conditional Distributions.” Annals of Probability 3 (5): 741–52..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cisewski, J., Kadane, J., Schervish, M., Seidenfeld, T., and Stern, R.. 2018. “Standards for Modest Bayesian Credences.” Philosophy of Science 85 (1): 53–78..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaconis, P., and Zabell, S. L.. 1982. “Updating Subjective Probability.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 77 (380): 822–30..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. 1992. Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Elkin, L., and Wheeler, G.. 2018. “Resolving Peer Disagreements through Imprecise Probabilities.” Noûs 52 (2): 260–78..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellsberg, D. 1963. “Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 77 (2): 327–36..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaifman, H., and Snir, M.. 1982. “Probabilities over Rich Languages, Testing and Randomness.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 47 (3): 495–548..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genest, C., and Zidek, J. V.. 1986. “Combining Probability Distributions: A Critique and an Annotated Bibliography.” Statistical Science 1 (1): 114–35..Google Scholar
Huttegger, S. M. 2013. “In Defense of Reflection.” Philosophy of Science 80 (3): 413–33..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huttegger, S. M.. 2015a. “Bayesian Convergence to the Truth and the Metaphysics of Possible Worlds.” Philosophy of Science 82 (4): 587–601..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huttegger, S. M.. 2015b. “Merging of Opinions and Probability Kinematics.” Review of Symbolic Logic 8 (4): 611–48..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalai, E., and Lehrer, E.. 1994. “Weak and Strong Merging of Opinions.” Journal of Mathematical Economics 23 (1): 73–86..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, K. T. 1996. The Logic of Reliable Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levi, I. 1974. “On Indeterminate Probabilities.” Journal of Philosophy 71 (13): 391–418..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I.. 1985. “Consensus as Shared Agreement and Outcome of Inquiry.” Synthese 62 (1): 3–11..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I.. 1987. “The Demons of Decision.” Monist 70 (2): 193–211..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D., and Raiffa, H.. 1957. Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Maher, P. 1992. “Diachronic Rationality.” Philosophy of Science 59 (1): 120–41..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, L. 1954/1972. The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schervish, M., and Seidenfeld, T.. 1990. “An Approach to Consensus and Certainty with Increasing Evidence.” Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 25 (3): 401–14..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenfeld, T. 2001. “Remarks on the Theory of Conditional Probability: Some Issues of Finite versus Countable Additivity. In Probability Theory: Philosophy, Recent History and Relations to Science, ed. Hendricks, V. F.. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Škulj, D. 2006. “Jeffrey’s Conditioning Rule in Neighbourhood Models.” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 42 (3): 192–211..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. 1987. “Dynamic Coherence and Probability Kinematics.” Philosophy of Science 54 (1): 1–20..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B.. 1993. “A Mistake in Dynamic Coherence Arguments?” Philosophy of Science 60 (2): 320–28..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B.. 1996. “The Structure of Radical Probabilism.” Erkenntnis 45 (2–3): 285–97.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. T., and Quintana, I. Ojea. 2018a. “Learning and Pooling, Pooling and Learning.” Erkenntnis 83 (3): 369–89..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, R. T., and Quintana, I. Ojea. 2018b. “Probabilistic Opinion Pooling with Imprecise Probabilities.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 47 (1): 17–45..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walley, P. 1991. Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar