Radical Pooling and Imprecise Probabilities.

This paper focuses on radical pooling, or the question of how to aggregate credences when there is a fundamental disagreement about which is the relevant logical space for inquiry. The solution advanced is based on the notion of consensus as common ground (Levi in Synthese 62:3–11, 1985), where agen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Erkenntnis Vol. 89; no. 1; pp. 153 - 181
Autor principal: Quintana, Ignacio Ojea
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Jan2024
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=175138563&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 175138563
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        01650106
        5KZ
      jtl: Erkenntnis
      issn: 01650106
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jan2024
      vid: 89
      iid: 1
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        175138563
        10.1007/s10670-022-00527-9
      ppf: 153
      ppct: 28
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 1.7MB
      tig:
        atl: Radical Pooling and Imprecise Probabilities.
      aug:
        au: Quintana, Ignacio Ojea
        affil: https://ror.org/019wvm592 School of Philosophy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
      su:
        Probability theory
        Scientific Revolution
        Axioms
      sug:
        subj:
          Probability theory
          Scientific Revolution
          Axioms
      ab: This paper focuses on radical pooling, or the question of how to aggregate credences when there is a fundamental disagreement about which is the relevant logical space for inquiry. The solution advanced is based on the notion of consensus as common ground (Levi in Synthese 62:3–11, 1985), where agents can find it by suspending judgment on logical possibilities. This is exemplified with cases of scientific revolution. On a formal level, the proposal uses algebraic joins and imprecise probabilities; which is shown to be compatible with the principles of marginalization, rigidity, reverse bayesianism, and minimum divergence commonly endorsed in these contexts. Furthermore, I extend results from previous work by (Stewart & Ojea Quintana in J Philos Logic 47:17–45, 2016; Erkenntnis 83:369–389, 2018) to show that pooling sets of imprecise probabilities can satisfy important pooling axioms.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Erkenntnis is a copyright of Springer, 2024. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Erkenntnis
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2024
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N