“A New Prospect for Epistemic Aggregation” (with Yoaav Isaacs) Episteme 10 (3) : 269-281 (2013).
How should the opinion of a group relate to the opinions of its members? We defend four norms – coherence, locality, anonymity and unanimity. Existing results show that there is no tenable procedure for aggregating outright beliefs or credences meets these criteria. In response, we suggest aggregating credal pairs (pairs of prior probabilities and evidence). We show that there is a method of aggregating credal pairs with all four virtues.
Cross-modal Comparisons: How to Defuse an Ontological Bomb
Mars could have been colder than it is---that's a cross modal comparison. What does it take such facts to be true? The standard outscoping view says they require quantification into modal contexts. What it is for Mars to be possibly colder than it is is for there to be two temperatures such that Mars has the greater and could have had the lesser. This works only if we first have the existence of temperatures or other such metaphysical exotica to quantify over. Cross-modal comparisons are therefore a kind of ontological bomb according to outscopers. This paper is about how to defuse them. One of the most useful applications is to the question of whether we can do science without space and numbers. Hartry Field and company say no. I say yes, at least after we defuse the bomb.
How should the opinion of a group relate to the opinions of its members? We defend four norms – coherence, locality, anonymity and unanimity. Existing results show that there is no tenable procedure for aggregating outright beliefs or credences meets these criteria. In response, we suggest aggregating credal pairs (pairs of prior probabilities and evidence). We show that there is a method of aggregating credal pairs with all four virtues.
Cross-modal Comparisons: How to Defuse an Ontological Bomb
Mars could have been colder than it is---that's a cross modal comparison. What does it take such facts to be true? The standard outscoping view says they require quantification into modal contexts. What it is for Mars to be possibly colder than it is is for there to be two temperatures such that Mars has the greater and could have had the lesser. This works only if we first have the existence of temperatures or other such metaphysical exotica to quantify over. Cross-modal comparisons are therefore a kind of ontological bomb according to outscopers. This paper is about how to defuse them. One of the most useful applications is to the question of whether we can do science without space and numbers. Hartry Field and company say no. I say yes, at least after we defuse the bomb.
