Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:55:49.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is the “Equal Weight View”?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

David Jehle  and
Branden Fitelson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate various possible (Bayesian) precisifications of the (somewhat vague) statements of “the equal weight view” (EWV) that have appeared in the recent literature on disagreement. We will show that the renditions of (EWV) that immediately suggest themselves are untenable from a Bayesian point of view. In the end, we will propose some tenable (but not necessarily desirable) interpretations of (EWV). Our aim here will not be to defend any particular Bayesian precisification of (EWV), but rather to raise awareness about some of the difficulties inherent in formulating such precisifications.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , October 2009 , pp. 280 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Christensen, D. 2007. “Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.” Philosophical Review 119: 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalkey, N. 1972. An Impossibility Theorem for Group Probability Functions. P-4862. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
Diaconis, P. and Zabell, S. 1982. “Updating Subjective Probability.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 77: 822–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, A. 2007. “Reflection and Disagreement.” Nous 41: 478–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. 2006. “Epistemological Puzzles About Disagreement.” In Hetherington, S. (ed.), Epistemology Futures, pp. 216–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. 2007. “Reasonable Religious Disagreement.” In Antony, L. (ed.), Philosophers Without God: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fitelson, B. 2008. “A Decision Procedure for Probability Calculus with Applications.” Review of Symbolic Logic 1: 111–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genest, C. and Zidek, J. 1986. “Combining Probability Distributions: A Critique and an Annotated Bibliography.” Statistical Science 1.1: 114–35.Google Scholar
Greaves, H. and Wallace, D. 2006. “Justifying Conditionalization: Conditionalization Maximizes Expected Epistemic Utility.” Mind 115: 607–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, R. 1987. “Indefinite Probability Judgment.” Philosophy of Science 54: 586–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, R. 2004. Subjective Probability: The Real Thing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, J. 1998. “A Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism.” Philosophy of Science 65: 575–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, T. Forthcoming. “Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence.” In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds.), Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. and Wagner, C. 1981. Rational Consensus in Science and Society: A Philosophical and Mathematical Study. Dordrecht-Boston: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, K. and Wagner, C. 1983. “Probability Amalgamation and the Independence Issue: A Reply to Laddaga.” Synthese 55: 339–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewer, B. and Ladagga, R. 1985. “Destroying the Consensus.” Synthese 62: 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogenji, T. 2007. “A Conundrum in Bayesian Epistemology of Disagreement.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Wagner, C. 1984. “Aggregating Subjective Probabilities: Some Limitative Theorems.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 25: 233–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, C. 1985. “On the Formal Properties of Weighted Averaging as a Method of Aggregation.” Synthese 62: 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, C. 2002. “Probability Kinematics and Commutativity.” Philosophy of Science 69: 266–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar