中正大学 哲学系

:::

哲学系学术演讲公告:官科宏博士

  • 2021-02-23
  • Admin
{{Alt_title}}

讲者:官科宏(伦敦政治经济学院哲学逻辑与科学方法学系博士)

讲题:Beyond Linear Conciliation

时间:2021/2/24 (Wednesday) 15:10

地点:文学院412研讨室

 

Abstract: The Conciliatory View is one of the most extensively discussed positions in the study of disagreement. The epistemologists who endorse the Conciliatory View advise one to conciliate with the peer. Epistemologists point out that this view is formally deficient. It is non-commutative with conditionalisation (Jehle and Fitelson 2009), it is path-dependent (Gardiner 2014), and it does not preserve the independence between propositions (Elkin and Wheeler 2018}. Failing to commute with conditionalisation means that one may switch the order between conciliating and conditionalising and obtain different outcomes. Failing to be path independent means that the outcome of conciliation varies with the order of the acquisition of new testimonies. Failing to preserve the independence between propositions means that one may suffer from a sure-loss and hence be deemed irrational. The three formal deficiencies urge people to abandon the Conciliatory View.


What I aim to show in this talk is that the Conciliatory View can be saved if we conciliate with nonlinear averaging functions. Research in the study of opinion pooling shows that the three deficiencies are not problems of the Conciliatory View, but problems of linear averaging {Genest1984, Dietrich and List 2016}. Hence, one can get rid of these formal deficiencies by making conciliation with nonlinear averaging functions. After showing how the three deficiencies can be avoided, I will explore the features of nonlinear averaging functions and argue that they have properties that correctly capture people’s intuitions concerning disagreement. The conclusion, therefore, is to suggest epistemologists develop a more fine-grained taxonomy for cases of disagreement. With a deliberate categorisation of different kinds of disagreement, epistemologists can pick the proper averaging rule to apply in each specific case, and eliminate possible formal deficiencies.