Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-f9nfp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-19T10:11:49.456Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Group Knowledge and Group Rationality: A Judgment Aggregation Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Christian List
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper, I introduce the emerging theory of judgment aggregation as a framework for studying institutional design in social epistemology. When a group or collective organization is given an epistemic task, its performance may depend on its ‘aggregation procedure’, i.e. its mechanism for aggregating the group members' individual beliefs or judgments into corresponding collective beliefs or judgments endorsed by the group as a whole. I argue that a group's aggregation procedure plays an important role in determining whether the group can meet two challenges: the ‘rationality challenge’ and the ‘knowledge challenge’. The rationality challenge arises when a group is required to endorse consistent beliefs or judgments; the knowledge challenge arises when the group's beliefs or judgments are required to track certain truths. My discussion seeks to identify those properties of an aggregation procedure that affect a group's success at meeting each of the two challenges.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , June 2005 , pp. 25 - 38
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Austen-Smith, David, & Banks, Jeffrey (1996). Information Aggregation, Rationality and the Condorcet Jury Theorem. American Political Science Review 90: 34–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Yashar, Ruth, & Nitzan, Shmuel (1997). The optimal decision rule for fixed-size committees in dichotomous choice situations: the general result. International Economic Review 38: 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borland, Philip (1989). Majority systems and the Condorcet jury theorem. Statistician 38: 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, Luc, & Rabinowicz, Wlodek (2005). Democratic Answers to Complex Questions: an Epistemic Perspective. Synthese, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Dietrich, Franz (2005). Judgment aggregation: (im)possibility theorems. Journal of Economic Theory, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Dietrich, Franz, & List, Christian (2004). A model of jury decisions where all jurors have the same evidence. Synthese 142: 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, Franz, & List, Christian (2005). Strategy-proof judgment aggregation. Working paper, LSE.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John, & List, Christian (2003). Social Choice Theory and Deliberative Democracy: A Reconciliation. British Journal of Political Science 33(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, David (1994). Opinion leaders, independence and Condorcet's jury theorem. Theory and Decision 36: 131–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald (2002). Distributed Cognition in Epistemic Cultures. Philosophy of Science 69: 637–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin (1999). Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin (2004). Group Knowledge versus Group Rationality: Two Approaches to Social Epistemology. EPISTEME 1: 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. (ed.) (1996). The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, Owen, Guillermo, & Feld, Scott (1983). Thirteen theorems in search of the truth. Theory and Decision 15: 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr Cetina, Karin (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladha, Krishna (1992). The Condorcet jury theorem, free speech and correlated votes. American Journal of Political Science 36: 617–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, Christian (2002). Two Concepts of Agreement. The Good Society 11(1): 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, Christian (2003). Distributed Cognition: A Perspective from Social Choice Theory. Presentation, Australian National University, London School of Economics, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
List, Christian (2005a). The Discursive Dilemma and Public Reason. Ethics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
List, Christian (2005b). The Probability of Inconsistencies in Complex Collective Decisions. Social Choice and Welfare 24(1): 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, Christian, & Pettit, Philip (2002). Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result. Economics and Philosophy 18: 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, Christian, & Pettit, Philip (2004). Aggregating Sets of Judgments: Two Impossibility Results Compared. Synthese 140(1-2): 207–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, Christian, & Pettit, Philip (2005a). On the Many as One. Philosophy and Public Affairs 33(4): 377–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, Christian, & Pettit, Philip (2005b). Group Agency and Supervenience. Working paper, LSE.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge/MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pauly, Marc, & van, Hees Martin (2005). Logical Constraints on Judgment Aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip (2001) Deliberative Democracy and the Discursive Dilemma. Philosophical Issues (supplement to Nous) 11: 268–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Philip (2003). Groups with Minds of their Own. In Schmitt, Fred (ed.). Socializing Metaphysics. New York: Rowan and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Rovane, Carol (1998). The Bounds of Agency: An essay in Revisionary Metaphysics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar