Resolving Peer Disagreements Through Imprecise Probabilities

Lee Elkin, Gregory Wheeler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Two compelling principles, the Reasonable Range Principle and the Preservation of Irrelevant Evidence Principle, are necessary conditions that any response to peer disagreements ought to abide by. The Reasonable Range Principle maintains that a resolution to a peer disagreement should not fall outside the range of views expressed by the peers in their dispute, whereas the Preservation of Irrelevant Evidence (PIE) Principle maintains that a resolution strategy should be able to preserve unanimous judgments of evidential irrelevance among the peers. No standard Bayesian resolution strategy satisfies the PIE Principle, however, and we give a loss aversion argument in support of PIE and against Bayes. The theory of imprecise probability allows one to satisfy both principles, and we introduce the notion of a set-based credal judgment to frame and address a range of subtle issues that arise in peer disagreements.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)260-278
JournalNous
Volume52
Issue number2
Early online date21 May 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2018

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Resolving Peer Disagreements Through Imprecise Probabilities'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this