Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: An argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation

Synthese

Volumn 152, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 285-298

  Pigozzi, Gabriella ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Belief merging; Discursive dilemma; Discursive paradox; Fusion; Judgment aggregation

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749449752     PISSN: 00397857     EISSN: 15730964     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-006-9063-7     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Baral, C., Kraus, S., Minker, J., & Subrahmanian, V. S. (1992). Combining knowledge bases consisting of first-order theories. Computational Intelligence, 8(1), 45-71.
2. Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Prade, H., & Williams, M. A. (1999). A practical approach to fusing prioritized knowledge bases. EPIA, 1999, 223-236.
3. Borgida, A., & Imielinski, T. (1984). Decision making in committees: A framework for dealing with inconsistency and non-monotonocity. In Proceedings workshop on nonmonotonic reasoning (pp. 21-32).
4. Bovens, L., & Rabinowicz, W. (2006). Democratic answers to complex questions. An epistemic perspective. Synthese, 150, 131-153.
5. Brams, S. J., Kilgour, D.M., & Sanver, M. R. (2004). A minimax procedure for negotiating multilateral treaties, preprint, Department of Politics, New York University.
6. Brennan, G. (2001). Collective coherence? International Review of Law and Economics, 21(2), 197-211.
7. Chapman, B. (1998). More easily done than said: Rules, reason and rational choice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 18, 293-330.
8. Chapman, B. (2002). Rational aggregation. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 1(3), 337-354.
9. Cholvy, L. (1994). A logical approach to multi-sources reasoning. In M. Masuch, & L. Polos. (Eds.), Knowledge representation and reasoning under uncertainty: Logic at work (pp. 183-196). Springer, LNAI 808.
10. Dietrich, F. (2006). Judgment aggregation: (Im)possibility theorems. Journal of Economic Theory, 126(1), 286-298.
11. Dietrich, F., & List, C. (2004). A liberal paradox for judgment aggregation. Economics Working Paper Archive at WUSTL, http://ideas.repec.org/p/ wpa/wuwppe/0405003.html
12. Dietrich, F., & List, C. (2006). Arrow's theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare, forthcoming.
13. Dokow, E., & Holzman, R. (2005). Aggregation of binary evaluations, Working paper, Technion, Israel. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/LIST/ doctrinalparadox.htm
14. Eckert, D., & Pigozzi, G. (2005). Belief merging, judgment aggregation, and some links with social choice theory. In J. Delgrande, J. Lang, H. Rott, & J. M. Tallon, (Eds.), Belief change in rational agents: Perspectives from artificial intelligence, philosophy, and economics, Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 05321, Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum (IBFI), http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2005/333/pdf/05321. PigozziGabriella1.Paper.333.pdf
15. Elster, J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press.
16. Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in flux: Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. The MIT Press.
17. Gärdenfors, P. (2005). An Arrow-like theorem for voting with logical consequences. Economics and Philosophy, forthcoming.
18. Konieczny, S. (1999). Sur la Logique du Changement: Révision et Fusion de Bases de Connaissance, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lille I, France.
19. Konieczny, S. (2000). On the difference between merging knowledge bases and combinig them. In Proceedings of KR'00 (pp. 135-144). Morgan Kaufmann, Breckenridge, Colorado, USA.
20. 2 merging operators. Artificial Intelligence, 157, 49-79.
21. Konieczny, S., & Pino-Pérez, R. (1998). On the logic ofmerging. In Proceedings of KR'98 (pp. 488-498). Morgan Kaufmann.
22. Konieczny, S., & Pino-Pérez, R. (1999). Merging with integrity constraints. In Proceedings of ECSQARU'99 (pp. 233-244). LNAI 1638.
23. Konieczny, S., & Pino-Pérez, R. (2002a). Merging information under constraints: A logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(5), 773-808.
24. Konieczny, S., & Pino-Pérez, R. (2002b). On the frontier between arbitration and majority. In Proceedings of the eight international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR '02) (pp. 109-118).
25. Konieczny, S., & Pino-Pérez, R. (2005). Propositional belief base merging or how to merge beliefs/goals coming from several sources and some links with social choice theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 160(3), 785-802
26. Kornhauser, L. A. (1992). Modeling collegial courts II. Legal doctrine. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 8, 441-470.
27. Kornhauser, L. A., & Sager, L. G. (1986). Unpacking the court. Yale Law Journal, 96, 82-117.
28. Kornhauser, L. A., & Sager, L. G. (1993). The one and the many: Adjudication in collegial courts. California Law Review, 81, 1-51.
29. Kowalski, R. (1978). Logic for data description. In H. G. J. Minker (Ed.), Logic and data bases (pp. 77-102). New York: Plenum.
30. Liberatore, P., & Schaerf, M. (2000). Brels: A system for the integration of knowledge bases. In Proceedings of KR 2000 (pp. 145-152).
31. Lin, J. (1996). Integration of weighted knowledge bases. Artificial Intelligence, 83, 363-378.
32. Lin, J., & Mendelzon, A. (1996). Merging databases under constraints. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 7, 55-76.
33. Lin, J., & Mendelzon, A. (1999). Knowledge base merging bymajority. In R. Pareschi, & B. Fronhoefer (Eds.), Dynamic worlds: From the frame problem to knowledge management. Kluwer.
34. List, C. (2005). The probability of inconsistencies in complex collective decisions. Social Choice and Welfare, 24(1): 3-32.
35. List, C. (2006a). Judgment aggregation - A bibliography on the discursive dilemma, the doctrinal paradox and decisions on multiple propositions. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/LIST/doctrinalparadox.htm
36. List, C. (2006b). The discursive dilemma and public reason. Ethics, 116(2), 362-402.
37. List, C., & Pettit, P. (2002). Aggregating sets of judgments. An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy, 18, 89-110.
38. List, C., & Pettit, P. (2004). Aggregating sets of judgments. Two impossibility results compared. Synthese, 140, 207-235.
39. Maynard-Reid, P., & Shoham, Y. (1998). From belief revision to belief fusion. In Proceedings of the third conference on logic and the foundations of game and decision theory (LOFT3), ICER, Torino, Italy.
40. Nehring, K., & Puppe, C. (2005). Consistent judgment aggregation: A characterization. Working paper. University of Karlsruhe.
41. Pauly, M., & van Hees, M. (2006). Logical constraints on judgment aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 35.
42. Pettit, P. (2001). Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues, 11, 268-299.
43. Pigozzi, G. (2005). Two aggregation paradoxes in social decision making: The Ostrogorski paradox and the discursive dilemma. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 2(2), 33-42.
44. Reiter, R. (1988). On integrity constraints. In M. Y. Vardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the second conference on the theoretical aspects of reasoning about knowledge (pp. 97-111). San Francisco, Calif.: Morgan Kaufmann.
45. Revesz, P. (1997). On the semantics of arbitration. International Journal of Algebra and Computation, 7(2), 133-160.