Group Doxastic Rationality Need Not Supervene on Individual Rationality.

There is a strong formal analogy between proposition-wise supervenience of collective doxastic rationality on individual doxastic rationality and supervenience of social choice functions on individual choice functions. In light of this analogy, the basis for List and Pettit's impossibility theorems...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Southern Journal of Philosophy Vol. 44; pp. 106 - 118
Autor principal: Ross, Don
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Mar2006 Supplement 1
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=62480468&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 62480468
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00384283
        2GW
      jtl: Southern Journal of Philosophy
      issn: 00384283
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Mar2006 Supplement 1
      vid: 44
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        62480468
        10.1111/j.2041-6962.2006.tb00033.x
      ppf: 106
      ppct: 12
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 746KB
      tig:
        atl: Group Doxastic Rationality Need Not Supervene on Individual Rationality.
      aug:
        au: Ross, Don
        affil: University of Alabama at Birmingham and University of Cape Town
      su:
        Reason
        Social choice
        Theorists
        Supervenience (Philosophy)
        Judgment (Psychology)
        Plausibility (Logic)
      sug:
        subj:
          Reason
          Social choice
          Theorists
          Supervenience (Philosophy)
          Judgment (Psychology)
          Plausibility (Logic)
      ab: There is a strong formal analogy between proposition-wise supervenience of collective doxastic rationality on individual doxastic rationality and supervenience of social choice functions on individual choice functions. In light of this analogy, the basis for List and Pettit's impossibility theorems can fruitfully be compared with the basis for Arrow's. This helps to explain why List and Pettit can derive no impossibility theorem for set-wise supervenience. However, there are empirical reasons for doubting that set-wise supervenience of collective doxastic rationality on individual doxastic rationality is necessary; a systematic feedback relationship between the former and some individual behavioral dispositions is probably sufficient to dissolve mysteries about group agency. Group doxastic rationality need not supervene on individual rationality.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Southern Journal of Philosophy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Southern Journal of Philosophy
      holder: Wiley-Blackwell
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2006
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N