Abstract
In the debate of epistemic peer disagreement the equal-weight view suggests to split the difference between one’s own and one’s peer’s opinions. An argument in favour of this view—which is prominently held by Adam Elga—is that by such a difference-splitting one may make some use of a so-called wise-crowd effect. In this paper it is argued that such a view faces two main problems: First, the problem that the standards for making use of a wise-crowd effect are quite low. And second, the problem that following the equal-weight view decreases such effects and by this the argument’s own basis is defeated. We therefore come to the conclusion that an argument for the equal-weight view with the help of wise-crowd effects as provided more or less explicitly by Elga does not succeed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Dietrich, F. (2008). The premises of Condorcet’s Jury theorem are not simultaneously justified. Episteme, 5(01), 56–73. ISSN:1750-0117. doi:10.3366/E1742360008000233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742360000000927
Douven, I. (2010). Simulating peer disagreements. Studies in history and philosophy of science part A, 41(2), 148–157. ISSN:0039-3681. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.03.010. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368110000221
Elga, A. (2007). Reflection and disagreement. English. Noûs, 41(3), 478–502. ISSN:00294624. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4494542
Feldbacher, C. J. (2012). Meta-induction and the wisdom of crowds. Comment on Paul D. Thorn and Gerhard Schurz. Analyse und Kritik, 34(2), 367–382. ISSN:0171-5860.
Feldman, R. (2007). Reasonable religious disagreements. In L. Antony (Ed.), Philosophers without god. Mediation on Atheism and secular life (pp. 194–214). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kittur, A. et al. (2007). Power of the few Vs. wisdom ofthe crowd: Wikipedia and the rise of the Bourgeoisie. Technival report, Alt.CHI at CHI 2007. alt.CHI at 25th Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2007), San Jose. http://www.viktoria.se/altchi/submissions/submission_edchi_1.pdf
Krogh, A., & Vedelsby, J. (1995). Neural network ensembles, cross validation, and active learning. In G. Tesauro, D. Touretzky, & T. Leen (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 7, pp. 231–238). Cambridge: MIT.
Ladha, K. K. (1992). The condorcet jury theorem, free speech, and correlated votes. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 617–634. ISSN:00925853. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111584
List, C., & Goodin, R. E. (2001). Epistemic democracy: Generalizing the condorcet jury theorem. Journal of Political Philosophy, 9(3), 277–306. ISSN:1467-9760. doi:10.1111/1467–9760.00128.
Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Stone, P. (2015). Introducing difference into the condorcet jury theorem. Theory and Decision, 78(3), 399–409. ISSN:0040-5833. doi:10.1007/s11238-014-9426-3.
Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Anchor Books.
Thorn, P., & Schurz, G. (2012). Meta-induction and the wisdom of crowds. Analyse und Kritik, 34(2), 339–366. ISSN:0171-5860.
Zollman, K. J. S. (2015). Modeling the social consequences of testimonial norms. Philosophical Studies, 172(9), 2371–2383. ISSN:0031-8116. doi:10.1007/s11098-014-0416-7.
Acknowledgements
For valuable discussion regarding this topic I’d like to thank especially Christoph Leitner, Gerhard Schurz, and Paul Thorn.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Feldbacher, C.J. (2015). Is the Equal-Weight View Really Supported by Positive Crowd Effects?. In: Mäki, U., Votsis, I., Ruphy, S., Schurz, G. (eds) Recent Developments in the Philosophy of Science: EPSA13 Helsinki. European Studies in Philosophy of Science, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23015-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23015-3_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23014-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23015-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)