Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T18:18:40.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE DISCURSIVE DILEMMA AS A LOTTERY PARADOX*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2007

IGOR DOUVEN  and
JAN-WILLEM ROMEIJN
IGOR DOUVEN
Affiliation:
University of Leuven
JAN-WILLEM ROMEIJN
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

List and Pettit have stated an impossibility theorem about the aggregation of individual opinion states. Building on recent work on the lottery paradox, this paper offers a variation on that result. The present result places different constraints on the voting agenda and the domain of profiles, but it covers a larger class of voting rules, which need not satisfy the proposition-wise independence of votes.

Type
Essay
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , November 2007 , pp. 301 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Dietrich, F. and List, C.. 2006a. The impossibility of unbiased judgment aggregation. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C.. 2006b. Judgement aggregation without full rationality. Social Choice and Welfare, in press.Google Scholar
Douven, I. 2002. A new solution to the paradoxes of rational acceptability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53:391–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douven, I. 2007. The lottery paradox and our epistemic goal. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, in press.Google Scholar
Douven, I. and Williamson, T.. 2006. Generalizing the lottery paradox. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57:755–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. 2006. An arrow-like theorem for voting with logical consequences. Economics and Philosophy 22:181–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G. 1986. Change in View. Cambridge MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kyburg, H. 1961. Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief. Middletown CT, Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Levi, I. 2002. List and Pettit. Synthese 140:237–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. and Pettit, P.. 2002. Aggregating sets of judgements: an impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy 18:89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, D. 2000. The lottery paradox, knowledge, and rationality. Philosophical Review 109:373–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauly, M. and Hees, M. van. 2006. Logical constraints on judgement aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35:569–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J. 1990. Nomic Probability and the Foundations of Induction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarski, A. 1986. What are logical notions? History and Philosophy of Logic 7:143–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar