Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

PhilPapersPhilPeoplePhilArchivePhilEventsPhilJobs
Switch to: References

Citations of:

Consensus formation in networked groups

In Henk W. De Regt, Stephan Hartmann & Samir Okasha,EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009. Springer. pp. 199--215 (2011)

Add citations

You mustlogin to add citations.
  1. Resolving Disagreement Through Mutual Respect.Carlo Martini,Jan Sprenger &Mark Colyvan -2013 -Erkenntnis 78 (4):881-898.
    This paper explores the scope and limits of rational consensus through mutual respect, with the primary focus on the best known formal model of consensus: the Lehrer–Wagner model. We consider various arguments against the rationality of the Lehrer–Wagner model as a model of consensus about factual matters. We conclude that models such as this face problems in achieving rational consensus on disagreements about unknown factual matters, but that they hold considerable promise as models of how to rationally resolve non-factual disagreements.
    Direct download(5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Do computer simulations support the Argument from Disagreement?Aron Vallinder &Erik J. Olsson -2013 -Synthese 190 (8):1437-1454.
    According to the Argument from Disagreement (AD) widespread and persistent disagreement on ethical issues indicates that our moral opinions are not influenced by moral facts, either because there are no such facts or because there are such facts but they fail to influence our moral opinions. In an innovative paper, Gustafsson and Peterson (Synthese, published online 16 October, 2010) study the argument by means of computer simulation of opinion dynamics, relying on the well-known model of Hegselmann and Krause (J Artif (...) Soc Soc Simul 5(3):1–33, 2002; J Artif Soc Soc Simul 9(3):1–28, 2006). Their simulations indicate that if our moral opinions were influenced at least slightly by moral facts, we would quickly have reached consensus, even if our moral opinions were also affected by additional factors such as false authorities, external political shifts and random processes. Gustafsson and Peterson conclude that since no such consensus has been reached in real life, the simulation gives us increased reason to take seriously the AD. Our main claim in this paper is that these results are not as robust as Gustafsson and Peterson seem to think they are. If we run similar simulations in the alternative Laputa simulation environment developed by Angere and Olsson (Angere, Synthese, forthcoming and Olsson, Episteme 8(2):127–143, 2011) considerably less support for the AD is forthcoming. (shrink)
    Direct download(12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
    • Home |New books and articles |Bibliographies |Philosophy journals |About PhilPapers |API |Contact us |Code of conduct

    CDPPhiosophy Documentation Center
    PhilPapers logo byAndrea Andrews andMeghan Driscoll.
    This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see ourterms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications).

    Use of this site is subject toterms & conditions.
    All rights reserved byThe PhilPapers Foundation

    Server: philpapers-web-5b9ff6f457-t4pt2 uwo
    [8]ページ先頭
    ©2009-2025 Movatter.jp