Bilingual planners disagree

Euthanasia: agreeing to disagree?

In discussions about the legalisation of active, voluntary euthanasia it is sometimes claimed that what should happen in a liberal society is that the two sides in the debate "agree to disagree". This paper explores what is entailed by agreeing to disagree and shows that this is considerably more complicated than what is usually believed to be the case. Agreeing to disagree is philosophically p...

Agreeing to disagree: a survey

Aggregating incoherent agents who disagree

We would like to arrive at a single coherent pair of credences in X and X. Perhaps we wish to use these to set our own credences; or perhaps we wish to publish them in a report of the WHO as the collective view of expert epidemiologists; or perhaps we wish to use them in a decision-making process to determine how medical research funding should be allocated in 2018. Given their expertise, we wo...

CODA: Coordinating Human Planners

E ective coordination of distributed human planners requires timely communication of relevant information to ensure the overall coherence of activities and the compatibility of assumptions. The CODA system provides targeted information dissemination among distributed human planners as a way of improving coordination. Within CODA, each planner declares interest in di erent types of plan changes ...

Agreeing to Disagree and Dilation

We consider Geanakoplos and Polemarchakis’s generalization of Aumman’s famous result on “agreeing to disagree”, in the context of imprecise probability. The main purpose is to reveal a connection between the possibility of agreeing to disagree and the interesting and anomalous phenomenon known as dilation. We show that for two agents who share the same set of priors and update by conditioning o...