Two aggregation paradoxes in social decision making: The Ostrogorski paradox and the discursive dilemma

Episteme

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 119-128

  Pigozzi, Gabriella ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010691074     PISSN: 17423600     EISSN: 17500117     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3366/epi.2005.2.2.119     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bezembinder T., and Van Acker P. (1985). “The Ostrogorski paradox and its relation to nontransitive choice”, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 11(2): 131–158.
2. Bovens L., and Rabinowicz W. (2005). “Democratic answers to complex questions. An epistemic perspective”, Synthese, forthcoming.
3. Brennan G. (2001). “Collective coherence?”, International Review of Law and Economics, 21 (2), 197–211.
4. Dalal M. (1988a). “Updates in propositional databases”, technical report, Rutgers University.
5. Dalal M. (1988b). “Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: Preliminary report”, in Proceedings of the 7th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Saint Paul, Minn., 475–479.
6. Daudt H., and Rae D.W. (1976). “The Ostrogorski paradox: a peculiarity of compound majority decision”, European Journal of Political Research, 4(4): 391–399.
7. Goldman A. (1999). Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Goldman A. (2004a). “Group knowledge versus group rationality: two approaches to social epistemology”, Episteme. A Journal of Social Epistemology, 1: 11–22.
9. Goldman A. (2004b). “The need for social epistemology”. In The Future of Philosophy, Leiter B. (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 182–207.
10. Horty J.F. (1994). “Some direct theories of nonmonotonic inheritance”. In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. 3: Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning, Gabbay D., Hogger C., and Robinson J. (eds.), Oxford University Press, 111–187.
11. Horty J.F. (2002). “Skepticism and floating conclusions”, Artificial Intelligence, 135: 55–72.
12. Horty J.F., Thomason R.H., and Touretzky D.S. (1990). “A skeptical theory of inheritance in nonmonotonic semantic networks”, Artificial Intelligence, 42: 311–348.
13. Kelly J.S. (1989). “The Ostrogorski paradox”, Social Choice and Welfare, 6: 71–76.
14. Konieczny S. (1999). Sur la Logique du Changement: Révision et Fusion de Bases de Connaissance, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lille, Lille, France.
15. Konieczny S., and Pino-Pérez R. (1998). “On the logic of merging”, in Proceedings of KR'98, Morgan Kaufmann, 488–498.
16. Konieczny S., and Pino-Pérez R. (2002). “Merging information under constraints: a logical framework”, Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(5): 773–808.
17. Kornhauser L. A. (1992). “Modelling collegial courts. II. Legal doctrine”, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 8: 441–470.
18. Kornhauser L.A., and Sager L.G. (1986). “Unpacking the court”, Yale Law Journal, 96: 82–117.
19. Kornhauser L.A., and Sager L.G. (1993). “The one and the many: Adjudication in collegial courts”, California Law Review, 81(1): 1–59.
20. Liberatore P, and Schaerf M. (1998). “Arbitration (or how to merge knowledge bases)”, in IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 10(1): 76–90.
21. Lin J., and Mendelzon A. (1996). “Merging databases under constraints“, International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 7: 55–76.
22. Lin J., and Mendelzon A. (1999). “Knowledge base merging by majority”, in Dynamic Worlds: From the Frame Problem to Knowledge Management, Pareschi R. and Fronhoefer B., (eds), Kluwer.
23. List C. (2005a). Judgment Aggregation – A Bibliography on the Discursive Dilemma, the Doctrinal Paradox and Decisions on Multiple Propositions. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/LISTdoctrinalparadox.htm
24. List C. (2005b). “Group knowledge and group rationality: a judgment aggregation perspective”, Episteme. A Journal of Social Epistemology, 2(1): 25–38.
25. List C., and Pettit P. (2002). “Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result”, Economics and Philosophy, 18: 89–110.
26. Makinson D, and Schlechta K. (1991). “Floating conclusions and zombie paths: two deep difficulties in the ‘directly skeptical’ approach to defeasible inheritance nets”, Artificial Intelligence, 48: 199–209.
27. Pigozzi G. (2005). “Collective decision-making without paradoxes: A fusion approach”. Working paper. King's College London. http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/pigozzi/publications.html
28. Revesz P. (1997). “On the semantics of arbitration”, International Journal of Algebra and Computation, 7: 133–160.