How to resolve doxastic disagreement

DOI10.1007/s11229-014-0431-4zbMath1317.03004OpenAlexW2006348783MaRDI QIDQ2515778

Anna-Maria A. Eder, Peter Brössel

Publication date: 6 August 2015

Published in: Synthese (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16530/1/ResolveDoxDisagreement.pdf

zbMATH Keywords

probability aggregationBayesian epistemologysocial epistemologyepistemic disagreement

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Philosophical and critical aspects of logic and foundations (03A05) Logics of knowledge and belief (including belief change) (03B42)

Related Items (4)

The joint aggregation of beliefs and degrees of belief ⋮ On the role of explanatory and systematic power in scientific reasoning ⋮ Logics for moderate belief-disagreement between agents ⋮ An optimality-argument for equal weighting

Cites Work

• Unnamed Item
• Logic based merging
• Probability amalgamation and the independence issue: A reply to Laddaga
• Characterization of externally Bayesian pooling operators
• Further evidence against independence preservation in expert judgement synthesis
• Allocation, Lehrer models, and the consensus of probabilities
• Lehrer and the consensus proposal
• Combining probability distributions: a critique and an annotated bibliography. With comments, and a rejoinder by the authors
• Probability aggregation methods in geoscience
• The new Tweety puzzle: arguments against monistic Bayesian approaches in epistemology and cognitive science
• Jeffrey conditioning and external Bayesianity
• In Defence of Objective Bayesianism
• Marginalization and Linear Opinion Pools

This page was built for publication: How to resolve doxastic disagreement