An impossibility theorem for amalgamating evidence

Amalgamating evidence of different kinds for the same hypothesis into an overall confirmation is analogous, I argue, to amalgamating individuals’ preferences into a group preference. The latter faces well-known impossibility theorems, most famously “Arrow’s Theorem”. Once the analogy between amalgamating evidence and amalgamating preferences is tight, it is obvious that amalgamating evidence might face a theorem similar to Arrow’s. I prove that this is so, and end by discussing the plausibility of the axioms required for the theorem.

[1]  R. Carnap On the Application of Inductive Logic , 1947 .

[2]  J. Earman,et al.  Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory , 1994 .

[3]  K. Arrow Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[4]  Deborah G. Mayo,et al.  Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge , 1996 .

[5]  Branden Fitelson,et al.  Bayesian Confirmation and Auxiliary Hypotheses Revisited: A Reply to Strevens , 2005, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[6]  A. Pieter,et al.  Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Volume 8. Philosophy of Information. , 2008 .

[7]  G. A. Barnard,et al.  THE LOGIC OF STATISTICAL INFERENCE1 , 1972, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[8]  Branden Fitelson,et al.  Likelihoodism, Bayesianism, and relational confirmation , 2007, Synthese.

[9]  M. Subrahmanyam Theory and Evidence , 2013 .

[10]  Samir Okasha,et al.  Theory Choice and Social Choice: Kuhn versus Arrow , 2011 .

[11]  K. Arrow,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[12]  J. Geanakoplos Three brief proofs of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem , 2001 .

[13]  Branden Fitelson The Plurality of Bayesian Measures of Confirmation and the Problem of Measure Sensitivity , 1999, Philosophy of Science.

[14]  R. Royall Statistical Evidence: A Likelihood Paradigm , 1997 .

[15]  Darrell P. Rowbottom Corroboration and auxiliary hypotheses: Duhem’s thesis revisited , 2010, Synthese.

[16]  Peter Baumann Theory Choice and the Intransitivity of ‘Is a Better Theory Than’* , 2005, Philosophy of Science.

[17]  Michael Strevens,et al.  The Bayesian Treatment of Auxiliary Hypotheses , 2001, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[18]  L. G. Neuberg,et al.  Bayes or Bust?-A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. , 1994 .

[19]  Lanning Sowden,et al.  Arrow's theorem, the paradox of social choice , 1981 .

[20]  Kent W. Staley Robust Evidence and Secure Evidence Claims* , 2004, Philosophy of Science.

[21]  Hannes Leitgeb,et al.  Dynamic doxastic logic: why, how, and where to? , 2007, Synthese.

[22]  Patrick Maher,et al.  Betting on Theories , 1993 .

[23]  N. Cartwright How the laws of physics lie , 1984 .

[24]  Marcel Weber,et al.  Philosophy of experimental biology , 2004 .

[25]  D. Black The theory of committees and elections , 1959 .

[26]  A. Sen,et al.  Collective Choice and Social Welfare , 2017 .

[27]  Branden Fitelson,et al.  Comparative Bayesian Confirmation and the Quine–Duhem Problem: A Rejoinder to Strevens , 2007, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[28]  Brian L. Keeley Making Sense of the Senses: Individuating Modalities in Humans and Other Animals , 2002 .

[29]  K. Arrow A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare , 1950, Journal of Political Economy.

[30]  Peter Urbach,et al.  Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach , 1989 .

[31]  Jacob Stegenga,et al.  Robustness, Discordance, and Relevance , 2009, Philosophy of Science.

[32]  Elliott Sober,et al.  Evidence and Evolution: The logic behind the science , 2008, Human Genomics.

[33]  Christian List,et al.  Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation , 2005, Soc. Choice Welf..