How to resolve doxastic disagreement

DOI10.1007/s11229-014-0431-4zbMath1317.03004MaRDI 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 aggregation; Bayesian epistemology; social epistemology; epistemic disagreement

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

03A05: Philosophical and critical aspects of logic and foundations

03B42: Logics of knowledge and belief (including belief change)

Related Items

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

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