Consensus Formation in Networked Groups

  • Carlo MartiniEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings book series (EPSP, volume 1)


This chapter proposes a solution, based on the theory of social networks, to the problem of weight assignment in the Lehrer-Wagner model for consensus. The Lehrer-Wagner model of consensus is introduced, and the problem of weight assignment is outlined, together with a number of possible solutions previously suggested in the literature. The chapter argues that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of weight assignment in the Lehrer-Wagner model, and suggests an alternative solution, which is based on the idea of deriving weights from existing networks of relations in the group. This proposal, it is argued, is particularly useful for maximizing or limiting the influence of a network of relations on the consensual opinion resulting from the model.


Consensus Model Weight Assignment Social Epistemology Consensus Formation Epistemic Peer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bradley, Richard. 2006. Taking advantage of difference in opinion. Episteme 3(3): 141–155.Google Scholar
  2. DeGroot, Morris. 1974. Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association 69: 118–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DeMarzo, Peter M., Dimistri Vayanos, and Jeffrey Zwiebel. 2003. Persuasion bias, social influence and unidimensional opinions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics August: 909–968.Google Scholar
  4. Elga, Adam. 2007. Reflection and disagreement. Noûs 41(3): 478–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. French, John R.P. Jr. 1956. A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review 63(3): 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldman, Alvin. 1999. Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Golub, Benjamin, and Matthew O. Jackson. 2007. Naïve learning in social networks: Convergence, influence, and the wisdom of crowds. Working Papers Series FEEM Working Paper No. 64.Google Scholar
  8. Goodin, Robert E. 2001. Consensus interruptus. The Journal of Ethics 5: 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hartmann, Stephan, Carlo Martini, and Jan Sprenger. 2009. Consensual decision-making among epistemic peers. Episteme 6(2): 110–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hegselmann, Rainer, and Ulrich Krause. 2002. Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: Models, analysis and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 5(3): 1–33.Google Scholar
  11. Hegselmann, Rainer, and Ulrich Krause. 2005. Opinion dynamics driven by different ways of averaging. Computational Economics 25: 381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hegselmann, Rainer, and Ulrich Krause. 2006. Truth and cognitive division of labour first steps towards a computer aided social epistemology. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9(3): 1–27.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson, Matthew O. 2008. Social and economic networks. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kelly, Thomas. 2005. Peer disagreement and higher order evidence. In Oxford studies in epistemology—Volume 1, eds. John Hawthorne and Tamar Gendler Szabo, 167–196. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kitcher, Philip. 1990. The division of cognitive labor. The Journal of Philosophy 87(1): 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lehrer, Keith. 1976. When rational disagreement is impossible. Noûs 10(3): 327–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lehrer, Keith. 2001. The rationality of dissensus: A reply to goodin. The Journal of Ethics 5: 133–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lehrer, Keith, and Carl Wagner. 1981. Rational consensus in science and society. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. List, Christian, and Philip Pettit. 2011. Group agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. List, Christian, and Robert E. Goodin. 2001. Epistemic democracy: Generalizing the condorcet Jury theorem. Journal of Political Philosophy 9: 277–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meyer, Carl D. 2000. Matrix analysis and applied linear algebra. Philadelphia PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM).Google Scholar
  22. Nurmi, Hannu. 1985. Some properties of the Lehrer-Wagner method for reaching rational consensus. Synthese 62: 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Regan, Helen M., Mark Colyvan, and Lisa Markovchick-Nicholls. 2006. A formal model for consensus and negotiation in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 80: 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Royle, Gordon, and Eric W. Weisstein. 2010. Reducible Matrix. MathWorld—A Wolfram Web Resource.—Retrieved 18 Feb 2010.
  25. van Aaken, Anne, Christian List, and Christoph Luetge, eds. 2004. Deliberation and decision: Economics, constitutional theory and deliberative democracy. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  26. Wagner, Carl. 1978. Consensus through respect: A model of rational group decision-making. Philosophical Studies 34: 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weisstein, Eric W. 2011. Graph. MathWorld—A Wolfram Web Resource.—Retrieved 10 Jan 2011.
  28. Young, H.P. 1988. Condorcet’s theory of voting. American Political Science Review 82: 1231–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg Center for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations