A Role for Judgment Aggregation in Coauthoring Scientific Papers

Citation data:

Erkenntnis, ISSN: 0165-0106, Page: 1-22

Publication Year:
2017
Usage 30
Downloads 30
Captures 3
Readers 3
Social Media 2
Tweets 2
Repository URL:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/12940
DOI:
10.1007/s10670-017-9887-1
Author(s):
Liam Kofi Bright, Haixin Dang, Remco Heesen
Publisher(s):
Springer Nature, Springer (Springer Science+Business Media B.V.)
Tags:
Arts and Humanities, Mathematics
Most Recent Tweet View All Tweets
article description
This paper addresses the problem of judgment aggregation in science. How should scientists decide which propositions to assert in a collaborative document? We distinguish the question of what to write in a collaborative document from the question of collective belief. We argue that recent objections to the application of the formal literature on judgment aggregation to the problem of judgment aggregation in science apply to the latter, not the former question. The formal literature has introduced various desiderata for an aggregation procedure. Proposition-wise majority voting emerges as a procedure that satisfies all desiderata which represent norms of science. An interesting consequence is that not all collaborating scientists need to endorse every proposition asserted in a collaborative document.

This article has 0 Wikipedia mention.