Judgment aggregation and the problem of tracking the truth

Synthese

Volumn 187, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 209-221

  Hartmann, Stephan ^a   Sprenger, Jan ^a  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Discursive dilemma; Judgment aggregation; Justification; Reasons; Truth tracking

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863185272     PISSN: 00397857     EISSN: 15730964     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-011-0031-5     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Bovens L., Rabinowicz W. (2006) Democratic answers to complex questions. An epistemic perspective. Synthese 150: 131-153.
2. Dietrich F., List C. (2006) Arrow's theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 29(1): 19-33.
3. Dietrich F., Mongin P. (2010) The premiss-based approach to judgment aggregation. Journal of Economic Theory 145(2): 562-582.
4. Hartmann S., Pigozzi G., Sprenger J. (2010) Reliable methods of judgment aggregation. Journal for Logic and Computation 20(2): 603-617.
5. List C. (2005) The probability of inconsistencies in complex collective decisions. Social Choice and Welfare 24(1): 3-32.
6. List C. (2006) The discursive dilemma and public reason. Ethics 116(2): 362-402.
7. List, C. (2007). Judgment aggregation-a bibliography on the discursive dilemma, the doctrinal paradox and decisions on multiple propositions. http://personal. lse. ac. uk/LIST/doctrinalparadox. htm.
8. List C., Pettit P. (2002) Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy 18: 89-110.
9. Miller M. K., Osherson D. (2009) Methods for distance-based judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 32: 575-601.
10. Mongin P. (2008) Factoring out the impossibility of logical aggregation. Journal of Economic Theory 141: 100-113.
11. Mongin, P. (2011). The doctrinal paradox, the discursive dilemma, and logical aggregation theory. Theory and Decision (Forthcoming).
12. Nozick R. (1981) Philosophical Explanations. Harvard University Press, Harvard.
13. Pigozzi G. (2006) Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation. Synthese 152(2): 285-298.