-
412Consensual Decision-Making Among Epistemic PeersEpisteme 6 (2): 110-129. 2009.This paper focuses on the question of how to resolve disagreement and uses the Lehrer-Wagner model as a formal tool for investigating consensual decision-making. The main result consists in a general definition of when agents treat each other as epistemic peers (Kelly 2005; Elga 2007), and a theorem vindicating the “equal weight view” to resolve disagreement among epistemic peers. We apply our findings to an analysis of the impact of social network structures on group deliberation processes, and…Read more
-
133Evidence and experimental design in sequential trialsPhilosophy of Science 76 (5): 637-649. 2009.To what extent does the design of statistical experiments, in particular sequential trials, affect their interpretation? Should postexperimental decisions depend on the observed data alone, or should they account for the used stopping rule? Bayesians and frequentists are apparently deadlocked in their controversy over these questions. To resolve the deadlock, I suggest a three‐part strategy that combines conceptual, methodological, and decision‐theoretic arguments. This approach maintains the pr…Read more
-
916Resolving Disagreement Through Mutual RespectErkenntnis 78 (4): 881-898. 2013.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 r…Read more
-
337Judgment aggregation and the problem of tracking the truthSynthese 187 (1): 209-221. 2012.The aggregation of consistent individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective judgment on those propositions has recently drawn much attention. Seemingly reasonable aggregation procedures, such as propositionwise majority voting, cannot ensure an equally consistent collective conclusion. The literature on judgment aggregation refers to that problem as the discursive dilemma. In this paper, we motivate that many groups do not only want to reach a factually right co…Read more
-
123Two Impossibility Results for Measures of CorroborationBritish Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69 (1): 139--159. 2018.According to influential accounts of scientific method, such as critical rationalism, scientific knowledge grows by repeatedly testing our best hypotheses. But despite the popularity of hypothesis tests in statistical inference and science in general, their philosophical foundations remain shaky. In particular, the interpretation of non-significant results—those that do not reject the tested hypothesis—poses a major philosophical challenge. To what extent do they corroborate the tested hypothesi…Read more
-
University of TurinProfessor
Torino, Piemonte, Italy
Areas of Specialization
1 more
Epistemology |
Philosophy of Probability |
General Philosophy of Science |
Causal Reasoning |
Probabilistic Reasoning |
Scientific Method |
Areas of Interest
Cognitive Sciences |
Decision Theory |
Conditionals |