Synthese

, Volume 152, Issue 2, pp 285–298 | Cite as

Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation

Original Paper

Abstract

The aggregation of individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective decision on the same propositions is called judgment aggregation. Literature in social choice and political theory has claimed that judgment aggregation raises serious concerns. For example, consider a set of premises and a conclusion where the latter is logically equivalent to the former. When majority voting is applied to some propositions (the premises) it may give a different outcome than majority voting applied to another set of propositions (the conclusion). This problem is known as the discursive dilemma (or paradox). The discursive dilemma is a serious problem since it is not clear whether a collective outcome exists in these cases, and if it does, what it is like. Moreover, the two suggested escape-routes from the paradox—the so-called premise-based procedure and the conclusion-based procedure—are not, as I will show, satisfactory methods for group decision-making. In this paper I introduce a new aggregation procedure inspired by an operator defined in artificial intelligence in order to merge belief bases. The result is that we do not need to worry about paradoxical outcomes, since these arise only when inconsistent collective judgments are not ruled out from the set of possible solutions.

Keywords

Judgment aggregation Discursive dilemma Discursive paradox Belief merging Fusion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baral C., Kraus S., Minker J., Subrahmanian V.S. (1992). Combining knowledge bases consisting of first-order theories. Computational Intelligence, 8(1): 45–71Google Scholar
  2. Benferhat S., Dubois D., Prade H., Williams M.A. (1999). A practical approach to fusing prioritized knowledge bases. EPIA, 1999: 223–236Google Scholar
  3. Borgida A., Imielinski T. (1984). Decision making in committees: A framework for dealing with inconsistency and non-monotonocity. In Proceedings workshop on nonmonotonic reasoning (pp. 21–32).Google Scholar
  4. Bovens L., Rabinowicz W. (2006). Democratic answers to complex questions An epistemic. Synthese, 150, 131–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brams S.J., Kilgour D.M., Sanver M.R. (2004). A minimax procedure for negotiating multilateral treaties. preprint Department of Politics, New York UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. Brennan G. (2001). Collective coherence?. International Review of Law and Economics, 21(2): 197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapman B. (1998). More easily done than said: Rules, reason and rational choice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 18: 293–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman B. (2002). Rational aggregation. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 1(3): 337–354Google Scholar
  9. Cholvy L. (1994). A logical approach to multi-sources reasoning. In: Masuch M., Polos L. (Eds), Knowledge representation and reasoning under uncertainty: Logic at work. Springer, LNAI 808, pp. 183–196Google Scholar
  10. Dietrich F. (2006). Judgment aggregation: (Im)possibility theorems. Journal of Economic Theory, 126(1): 286–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietrich F., List C. (2004). A liberal paradox for judgment aggregation. Economics Working Paper Archive at WUSTL, http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwppe/0405003.htmlGoogle Scholar
  12. Dietrich F., List C. (2006). Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  13. Dokow E., Holzman R. (2005). Aggregation of binary evaluations, Working paper, Technion, Israel. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/LIST/doctrinalparadox.htmGoogle Scholar
  14. Eckert D., Pigozzi G. (2005). Belief merging, judgment aggregation, and some links with social choice theory. In J. Delgrande J. Lang H. Rott, J. M. Tallon, (Eds.), Belief change in rational agents: Perspectives from artificial intelligence, philosophy, and economics, Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 05321, Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum (IBFI), http://drops. dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2005/333/pdf/05321.PigozziGabriella1.Paper.333.pdfGoogle Scholar
  15. Elster J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gärdenfors P. (1988). Knowledge in flux: Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gärdenfors P. (2005). An Arrow-like theorem for voting with logical consequences. Economics and Philosophy, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  18. Konieczny S. (1999). Sur la Logique du Changement: Révision et Fusion de Bases de Connaissance, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lille I, France.Google Scholar
  19. Konieczny S. (2000). On the difference between merging knowledge bases and combinig them. In Proceedings of KR’00 (pp. 135–144). Morgan Kaufmann, Breckenridge, Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Konieczny S., Lang J., Marquis P. (2004). DA2 merging operators. Artificial Intelligence, 157: 49–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Konieczny S., Pino-Pérez R. (1998). On the logic of merging. In Proceedings of KR’98 Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  22. Konieczny S., Pino-Pérez R. (1999). Merging with integrity constraints. In Proceedings of (pp. 233–244). LNAI 1638.Google Scholar
  23. Konieczny S., Pino-Pérez R. (2002a). Merging information under constraints: A logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(5): 773–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Konieczny S., Pino-Pérez R. (2002b). On the frontier between arbitration and majority. In Proceedings of the eight international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR ’02) (pp. 109–118).Google Scholar
  25. Konieczny S., Pino-Pérez R. (2005). Propositional belief base merging or how to merge beliefs/goals coming from several sources and some links with social choice theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 160(3): 785–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kornhauser L.A. (1992). Modeling collegial courts II. Legal doctrine. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 8, 441–470Google Scholar
  27. Kornhauser L.A., Sager L.G. (1986). Unpacking the court. Yale Law Journal, 96, 82–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kornhauser L.A., Sager L.G. (1993). The one and the many: Adjudication in collegial courts. California Law Review, 81, 1–51Google Scholar
  29. Kowalski R. (1978). Logic for data description. In: Minker H.G.J., (Ed), Logic and data bases. New York, Plenum, pp. 77–102Google Scholar
  30. Liberatore P., Schaerf M. (2000). Brels: A system for the integration of knowledge bases. In Proceedings of KR 2000 (pp. 145–152).Google Scholar
  31. Lin J. (1996). Integration of weighted knowledge bases. Artificial Intelligence, 83, 363–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin J., Mendelzon A. (1996). Merging databases under constraints. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 7, 55–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lin J., Mendelzon A. (1999). Knowledge base merging by majority. In: Pareschi R., Fronhoefer B. (Eds), Dynamic worlds: From the frame problem to knowledge management. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  34. List C. (2005). The probability of inconsistencies in complex collective decisions. Social Choice and Welfare, 24(1): 3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. List C. (2006a). Judgment aggregation—A bibliography on the discursive dilemma, the doctrinal paradox and decisions on multiple propositions. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/LIST/doctrinalparadox.htmGoogle Scholar
  36. List C. (2006b). The discursive dilemma and public reason. Ethics, 116(2): 362–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. List C., Pettit P. (2002). Aggregating sets of judgments. An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy, 18, 89–110Google Scholar
  38. List C., Pettit P. (2004). Aggregating sets of judgments. Two impossibility results compared. 140, 207–235Google Scholar
  39. Maynard-Reid P., Shoham Y. (1998). From belief revision to belief fusion. In Proceedings of the third conference on logic and the foundations of game and decision theory (LOFT3), ICER, Torino, Italy.Google Scholar
  40. Nehring K., Puppe C. (2005). Consistent judgment aggregation: A characterization. Working paper. University of Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
  41. Pauly M., van Hees M. (2006). Logical constraints on judgment aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 35Google Scholar
  42. Pettit P. (2001). Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues, 11, 268–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pigozzi G. (2005). Two aggregation paradoxes in social decision making: The Ostrogorski paradox and the discursive dilemma. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 2(2): 33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reiter R. (1988). On integrity constraints. In: Vardi M.Y. (Eds), Proceedings of the second conference on the theoretical aspects of reasoning about knowledge. San Francisco Calif, Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 97–111Google Scholar
  45. Revesz P. (1997). On the semantics of arbitration. International Journal of Algebra and Computation, 7(2): 133–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceKing’s College LondonStrandLondonUK

Personalised recommendations