The Discursive Dilemma and Probabilistic Judgement Aggregation
Let S be a set of logically related propositions, and suppose a jury must decide the truth/falsehood of each member of S. A `judgement aggregation rule' (JAR) is a rule for combining the truth valuations on S from each juror into a collective truth valuation on S. Recent work has shown that there is no reasonable JAR which always yields a logically consistent collective truth valuation; this is referred to as the `Doctrinal Paradox' or the `Discursive Dilemma'. In this paper we will consider JARs which aggregate the subjective probability estimates of the jurors (rather than Boolean truth valuations) to produce a collective probability estimate for each proposition in S. We find that to properly aggregate these probability estimates, the JAR must also utilize information about the private information from which each juror generates her own probability estimate.
|Date of creation:||23 Apr 2008|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Hylland, Aanund & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 1979. "The Impossibility of Bayesian Group Decision Making with Separate Aggregation of Beliefs and Values," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(6), pages 1321-36, November.
- Ménager, Lucie, 2008. "Consensus and common knowledge of an aggregate of decisions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 722-731, March.
- Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2005.
"Arrow's Theorem in Judgement Aggregation,"
0504007, EconWPA, revised 10 Sep 2005.
- Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2005. "Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation," STICERD - Political Economy and Public Policy Paper Series 13, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
- Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2005. "Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 19295, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2005. "Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000546, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Geanakoplos, John, 1994. "Common knowledge," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 40, pages 1437-1496 Elsevier.
- John Geanakoplos & (**), Moshe Y. Vardi & Joseph Y. Halpern & Ronald Fagin, 1999.
"The hierarchical approach to modeling knowledge and common knowledge,"
International Journal of Game Theory,
Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 331-365.
- Ronald Fagin & John Geanakoplos & Joseph Y. Halpern & Moshe Y. Vardi, 1999. "The Hierarchical Approach to Modeling Knowledge and Common Knowledge," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1213, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Feinberg, Yossi, 2000. "Characterizing Common Priors in the Form of Posteriors," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 127-179, April.
- Franz Dietrich, 2007.
"A generalised model of judgment aggregation,"
Social Choice and Welfare,
Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 529-565, June.
- Morris, Stephen, 1995. "The Common Prior Assumption in Economic Theory," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(02), pages 227-253, October.
- Ronald Fagin & Joseph Y. Halpern & Yoram Moses & Moshe Y. Vardi, 2003. "Reasoning About Knowledge," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262562006, June.
- Geanakoplos, John D. & Polemarchakis, Heraklis M., 1982. "We can't disagree forever," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 192-200, October.
- Mongin, Ph., 1991. "Harsanyi's aggregation theorem: multi-profile version and unsettled questions," CORE Discussion Papers 1991036, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Monderer, Dov & Samet, Dov, 1989. "Approximating common knowledge with common beliefs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 170-190, June.
- John C. Harsanyi, 1955. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63, pages 309.
- G Rdenfors, Peter, 2006. "A Representation Theorem For Voting With Logical Consequences," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(02), pages 181-190, July.
- List, Christian & Pettit, Philip, 2002. "Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(01), pages 89-110, April.
- Konieczny, Sebastien & Pino Perez, Ramon, 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, Elsevier, vol. 160(3), pages 785-802, February.
- John Geanakoplos & Heracles M. Polemarchakis, 1982. "We Can't Disagree Forever," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 639, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Nielsen, Lars Tyge, 1984. "Common knowledge, communication, and convergence of beliefs," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, August.
- Christian List, 2007. "Group deliberation and the transformation ofjudgments: an impossibility result," STICERD - Political Economy and Public Policy Paper Series 26, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:8412. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.