Consensual Decision-Making Among Epistemic Peers
نویسندگان
چکیده
This paper focuses on the question of how to resolve disagreement, and uses the Lehrer-Wagner model as a formal tool for investigating consensual decision-making. The main result consists in a general definition of when agents treat each other as epistemic peers (Kelly 2005; Elga 2007), and a theorem vindicating the “equal weight view” to resolve disagreement among epistemic peers. We apply our findings to an analysis of the impact of social network structures on group deliberation processes, and we demonstrate their stability with the help of numerical simulations.
منابع مشابه
Comparing uncertainty data in epistemic and ontic sense used to decision making problem
In the paper aspect of comparability alternatives in decision making problem by imprecise or incomplete information isexamined. In particular, new definitions of transitivity based on the measure of the intensity preference between pairsof alternatives in epistemic and ontic case is presented and its application to solve decision making problem is proposed.
متن کاملA novel risk-based analysis for the production system under epistemic uncertainty
Risk analysis of production system, while the actual and appropriate data is not available, will cause wrong system parameters prediction and wrong decision making. In uncertainty condition, there are no appropriate measures for decision making. In epistemic uncertainty, we are confronted by the lack of data. Therefore, in calculating the system risk, we encounter vagueness that we have to use ...
متن کاملA Proposal for Consensual Decision Making using Argumentation
We propose an approach where a consensual decision making in multiagent systems can be reached using argumentation, with dialogues inspired in the interaction among humans in presencial meetings. The goal of the study is to identify the main features needed to reach consensus, like speech acts that are necessary in a dialogue using argumentation and ways in which agents can accept or reject for...
متن کاملRelevant Expertise Aggregation : An Aristotelian middle way for epistemic democracy
Decision-making in a democracy must respect democratic values, while advancing citizens’ interests. Decisions made in an epistemic democracy must also take into account relevant knowledge about the world. Neither aggregation of independent guesses nor deliberation, the standard approaches to epistemic democracy, offers a satisfactory theory of decision-making that is at once time-sensitive and ...
متن کاملGender relations and reproductive decision making in Honduras.
CONTEXT Gender differences influence decision making about reproductive health. Most information on reproductive health decision making in Latin America has come from women's reports of men's involvement. METHODS Data were collected in Honduras in 2001 through two national surveys that used independent samples of men aged 15-59 years and women aged 15-49. Bivariate and multivariate analyses w...
متن کامل