Truth approximation, belief merging, and peer disagreement

• Autores: Gustavo Cevolani
• Localización: Synthese, ISSN-e 1573-0964, Vol. 191, Nº. 11, 2014, págs. 2383-2401
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • In this paper, we investigate the problem of truth approximation via belief merging, i.e., we ask whether, and under what conditions, a group of inquirers merging together their beliefs makes progress toward the truth about the underlying domain. We answer this question by proving some formal results on how belief merging operators perform with respect to the task of truth approximation, construed as increasing verisimilitude or truthlikeness. Our results shed new light on the issue of how rational (dis)agreement affects the inquirers� quest for truth. In particular, they vindicate the intuition that scientific inquiry, and rational discussion in general, benefits from some heterogeneity in opinion and interaction among different viewpoints. The links between our approach and related analyses of truth tracking, judgment aggregation, and opinion dynamics, are also highlighted.