Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-pw477 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-08T05:05:12.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EPISTEMOLOGY IN GROUP AGENCY: SIX OBJECTIONS IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2012

Fabrizio Cariani
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

List and Pettit's Group Agency is an extremely important book, spearheading a new wave of work on the metaphysics, epistemology and ethics of group agents. In this article, I focus on the epistemological thread in their discussion. After introducing the apparatus they use in analyzing the epistemic performance of groups, I criticize some elements and point to some ways in which the very same apparatus could be redirected to address them.

Type
Symposium on Christian List and Phillip Pettit, Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents
Information
Episteme , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 255 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Berg, S. 1996. ‘Condorcet's Jury Theorem and the Reliability of Majority Voting.’ Group Decision and Negotiation, 5(3): 229–38.Google Scholar
Bovens, L. and Rabinowicz, W. 2006. ‘Democratic Answers to Complex Questions.’ Synthese, 150: 131–53.Google Scholar
Condorcet, N. C. 1785. Essai sur l'Application de l'Analyse à la Probabilité des Décisions Rendues à la Pluralité des Voix. Paris.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F. 2008. ‘The Premises of Condorcet's Jury Theorem Are Not Simultaneously Justified.’ Episteme, 5(1): 56–73.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C. 2004. ‘A Model of Jury Decision Where All Jurors Have the Same Evidence.’ Synthese, 142: 175–202.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F. and Spiekermann, K. n.d. ‘Independent Opinions?’ manuscript, CNRS (Paris) and LSE.Google Scholar
Estlund, D. 1994. ‘Opinion Leaders, Independence and the Condorcet Jury Theorem.’ Theory and Decision, 36: 131–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. 1986. Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grofman, B., Owen, G. and Feld, S. L. 1983. ‘Thirteen Theorems in Search of the Truth.’ Theory and Decision, 15: 261–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G. 1986. Change in View Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S. and Sprenger, J. n.d. ‘Judgment Aggregation and the Problem of Truth-Tracking.’ Forthcoming in Synthese.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S., Pigozzi, G. and Sprenger, J. 2010. ‘Reliable Methods of Judgment Aggregation.’ Journal of Logic and Computation, 20: 603–17.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. n.d. ‘Voting in Search of the Public Good.’ University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
Konieczny, S. and Pino-Pérez, R. 2002. ‘Merging Information under Constraints: A Logical Framework.’ Journal of Logic and Computation, 12: 773–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. 2002. ‘Two Concepts of Agreement.’ The Good Society, 11(1): 72–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. 2004. ‘On The Significance of the Absolute Margin.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55: 521–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. 2005a. ‘Group Knowledge and Group Rationality: A Judgment Aggregation Perspective.’ Episteme, 2(1): 25–38.Google Scholar
List, C. 2005b. ‘The Probability of Inconsistencies in Complex Collective Decisions.’ Social Choice and Welfare, 24: 3–32.Google Scholar
List, C. and Pettit, P. 2002. ‘Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result.’ Economics and Philosophy, 18: 89–110.Google Scholar
List, C. and Pettit, P. 2011. Group Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maher, P. 1993. Betting on Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, M. K. and Osherson, D. 2009. ‘Methods for Distance-Based Aggregation.’ Social Choice and Welfare, 32: 575–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, R. 1981. Philosophical Explanations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Percival, P. 2002. ‘Epistemic Consequentialism.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society: supplementary volume, 76: 121–51.Google Scholar
Pigozzi, G. 2008. ‘Belief Merging and the Discursive Dilemma.’ Synthese, 152(2): 285–98.Google Scholar
Shapley, L. and Grofman, B. 1984. ‘Optimizing Group Judgmental Accuracy in the Presence of Interdependencies.’ Public Choice, 43: 329–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 2002. ‘Epistemic Consequentialism.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society: supplementary volume, 76: 152–68.Google Scholar
Roush, S. 2006. Tracking Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar