Truth and Cognitive Division of Labour: First Steps Towards a Computer Aided Social Epistemology

The paper analyzes the chances for the truth to be found and broadly accepted under conditions of cognitive division of labour combined with a social exchange process. Cognitive division of labour means, that only some individuals are active truth seekers, possibly with different capacities. The social exchange process consists in an exchange of opinions between all individuals, whether truth seekers or not. We de- velop a model which is investigated by both, mathematical tools and computer simulations. As an analytical result the Funnel theorem states that under rather weak conditions on the social process a consensus on the truth will be reached if all individuals posses an arbitrarily small inclination for truth seeking. The Leading the pack theorem states that under certain conditions even a single truth seeker may lead all individuals to the truth. Systematic simulations analyze how close and how fast groups can get to the truth depending on the frequency of truth seekers, their capacities as truth seekers, the position of the truth (more to the extreme or more in the centre of an opinion space), and the willingness to take into account the opinions of others when exchanging and updating opinions. A tricky movie visualizes simulations results in a parameter space of higher dimensions.

[1]  U. Krause.  A DISCRETE NONLINEAR AND NON–AUTONOMOUS MODEL OF CONSENSUS FORMATION , 2007 .

[2]  Guillaume Deffuant,et al.  Interacting Agents and Continuous Opinions Dynamics , 2001, cond-mat/0111494.

[3]  Walter Schulz,et al.  Wirklichkeit und Reflexion : Walter Schulz zum 60. Geburtstag , 1973 .

[4]  B. Collier,et al.  Replies , 1984, Neuroscience.

[5]  Hans Rott,et al.  Change, choice and inference - a study of belief revision and nonmonotonic reasoning , 2001, Oxford logic guides.

[6]  Noah E. Friedkin,et al.  Social influence and opinions , 1990 .

[7]  Dietrich Stauffer.  AIP Conference Proceedings on the Monte Carlo method in the physical sciences, to be edited by J.E. Gubernatis. How to convince others ? Monte Carlo simulations of the Sznajd model , 2003 .

[8]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Computer Simulations of Opinions and their Reactions to Extreme Events , 2006 .

[9]  E. Seneta,et al.  Towards consensus: some convergence theorems on repeated averaging , 1977, Journal of Applied Probability.

[10]  Ana Gabriela Maguitman,et al.  Logical models of argument , 2000, CSUR.

[11]  Diemo Urbig,et al.  Communication regimes in opinion dynamics: Changing the number of communicating agents , 2007 .

[12]  T. Kuipers.  From Instrumentalism to Constructive Realism: On Some Relations between Confirmation, Empirical Progress, and Truth Approximation , 2000 .

[13]  M. Degroot.  Reaching a Consensus , 1974 .

[14]  Dietrich Stauffer,et al.  DIFFICULTY FOR CONSENSUS IN SIMULTANEOUS OPINION FORMATION OF SZNAJD MODEL , 2004 .

[15]  Dorwin Cartwright,et al.  Studies in Social Power. , 1960 .

[16]  Janke Dittmer.  Consensus formation under bounded confidence , 2001 .

[17]  Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Opinion evolution in closed community , 2000, cond-mat/0101130.

[18]  Ulrich Krause.  Positive Particle Interaction , 2003, POSTA.

[19]  K. Lehrer.  Social consensus and rational agnoiology , 1975, Synthese.

[20]  Rainer Hegselmann,et al.  Formale Dialektik : ein Beitrag zu einer Theorie des rationalen Argumentierens , 1985 .

[21]  Ernest Sosa,et al.  The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology , 1999 .

[22]  J. French.  A formal theory of social power. , 1956, Psychology Review.

[23]  P. Engel,et al.  Truth and the Aim of Belief , 2005 .

[24]  Santo Fortunato.  THE KRAUSE HEGSELMANN CONSENSUS MODEL WITH DISCRETE OPINIONS , 2004 .

[25]  Nora Jacobson.  Social Epistemology , 2007 .

[26]  B. Latané,et al.  From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. , 1990 .

[27]  Isaac Levi,et al.  Consensus as shared agreement and outcome of inquiry , 2004, Synthese.

[28]  Jan Lorenz,et al.  A stabilization theorem for dynamics of continuous opinions , 2005, 0708.2981.

[29]  V. Latora,et al.  VECTOR OPINION DYNAMICS IN A BOUNDED CONFIDENCE CONSENSUS MODEL , 2005, physics/0504017.

[30]  Keith Lehrer.  Consensus and the ideal observer , 2004, Synthese.

[31]  U. Krause,et al.  Opinion Dynamics Driven by Various Ways of Averaging , 2005 .

[32]  Ulrich Krause.  Time-Variant Consensus Formation in Higher Dimensions , 2005 .

[33]  A. Goldman,et al.  Knowledge in a Social World , 2001 .

[34]  Guillaume Deffuant,et al.  Mixing beliefs among interacting agents , 2000, Adv. Complex Syst..

[35]  K. Lehrer.  When Rational Disagreement is Impossible , 1976 .

[36]  Rainer Hegselmann,et al.  Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: models, analysis and simulation , 2002, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[37]  Frederick F. Schmitt.  Socializing Epistemology: The Social Dimensions of Knowledge , 1994 .

[38]  S. Galam,et al.  Towards a theory of collective phenomena: Consensus and attitude changes in groups , 1991 .

[39]  S. Fortunato.  On The Consensus Threshold For The Opinion Dynamics Of Krause–Hegselmann , 2004, cond-mat/0408648.

[40]  Ulrich Krause,et al.  Differenzengleichungen und diskrete dynamische Systeme , 1999 .