Belief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation

The aggregation of individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective decision on the same propositions is called judgment aggregation. Literature in social choice and political theory has claimed that judgment aggregation raises serious concerns. For example, consider a set of premises and a conclusion where the latter is logically equivalent to the former. When majority voting is applied to some propositions (the premises) it may give a different outcome than majority voting applied to another set of propositions (the conclusion). This problem is known as the discursive dilemma (or paradox). The discursive dilemma is a serious problem since it is not clear whether a collective outcome exists in these cases, and if it does, what it is like. Moreover, the two suggested escape-routes from the paradox—the so-called premise-based procedure and the conclusion-based procedure—are not, as I will show, satisfactory methods for group decision-making. In this paper I introduce a new aggregation procedure inspired by an operator defined in artificial intelligence in order to merge belief bases. The result is that we do not need to worry about paradoxical outcomes, since these arise only when inconsistent collective judgments are not ruled out from the set of possible solutions.

[1]  Lawrence G. Sager,et al.  The One and the Many: Adjudication in Collegial Courts , 1993 .

[2]  Sébastien Konieczny.  Sur le logique du changement : révision et fusion de base de connaissance , 1999 .

[3]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On the Difference between Merging Knowledge Bases and Combining them , 2000, KR.

[4]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Merging with Integrity Constraints , 1999, ESCQARU.

[5]  Luc Bovens,et al.  Democratic Answers to Complex Questions – An Epistemic Perspective , 2006, Synthese.

[6]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Merging Information Under Constraints: A Logical Framework , 2002, J. Log. Comput..

[7]  L. Kornhauser.  Modeling Collegial Courts. II. Legal Doctrine , 1992 .

[8]  Steven J. Brams,et al.  A Minimax Procedure for Negotiating Multilateral Treaties , 2007 .

[9]  C. List.  The Discursive Dilemma and Public Reason* , 2006, Ethics.

[10]  Jack Minker,et al.  Logic and Data Bases , 1978, Springer US.

[11]  Remo Pareschi,et al.  Dynamic Worlds: From the Frame Problems to Knowledge Management , 1999 .

[12]  Didier Dubois,et al.  A Practical Approach to Fusing Prioritized Knowledge Bases , 1999, EPIA.

[13]  Christian List,et al.  Aggregating Sets of Judgments: Two Impossibility Results Compared1 , 2004, Synthese.

[14]  Alexander Borgida,et al.  Decision Making in Commitees - A Framework for Dealing with Inconsistency and Non-Monotonicity , 1984, NMR.

[15]  Christian List,et al.  A liberal paradox for judgment aggregation , 2008, Soc. Choice Welf..

[16]  Robert A. Kowalski.  Logic for Data Description , 1977, Logic and Data Bases.

[17]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States , 2008 .

[18]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On the Logic of Merging , 1998, KR.

[19]  Christian Rostboll,et al.  On Deliberative Democracy , 2001 .

[20]  Peter Z. Revesz,et al.  On the Semantics of Arbitration , 1997, Int. J. Algebra Comput..

[21]  B. Chapman,et al.  Rational Aggregation , 2002 .

[22]  Alberto O. Mendelzon,et al.  Knowledge Base Merging by Majority , 1999 .

[23]  Lawrence G. Sager,et al.  Unpacking the Court , 1986 .

[24]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  Propositional belief base merging or how to merge beliefs/goals coming from several sources and some links with social choice theory , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[25]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  On Integrity Constraints , 1988, TARK.

[26]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  DA2 merging operators , 2004, Artif. Intell..

[27]  B. Chapman,et al.  More Easily Done than Said: Rules, Reasons, and Rational Social Choice , 1998 .

[28]  Laurence Cholvy,et al.  A Logical Approach to Multi-Sources Reasoning , 1992, Logic at Work.

[29]  Jinxin Lin,et al.  Integration of Weighted Knowledge Bases , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[30]  P G rdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in flux: modeling the dynamics of epistemic states , 1988 .

[31]  László Pólos,et al.  International Conference Logic at Work on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Under Uncertainty, Logic at Work , 1992 .

[32]  Geoffrey Brennan,et al.  Collective coherence?☆9 , 2001 .

[33]  P. Pettit.  Deliberative Democracy and the Discursive Dilemma , 2001 .

[34]  Sébastien Konieczny,et al.  On the Frontier between Arbitration and Majority , 2002, KR.

[35]  C. List,et al.  Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result , 2002, Economics and Philosophy.

[36]  Gabriella Pigozzi,et al.  Two aggregation paradoxes in social decision making: the Ostrogorski paradox and the discursive dilemma , 2006, Episteme.

[37]  Marco Schaerf,et al.  BReLS: A System for the Integration of Knowledge Bases , 2000, KR.

[38]  Christian List,et al.  The probability of inconsistencies in complex collective decisions , 2005, Soc. Choice Welf..

[39]  Franz Dietrich,et al.  Judgment aggregation: (im)possibility theorems , 2006, J. Econ. Theory.

[40]  Gabriella Pigozzi,et al.  Belief merging, judgment aggregation and some links with social choice theory , 2005, Belief Change in Rational Agents.

[41]  Marc Pauly,et al.  Logical Constraints on Judgement Aggregation , 2006, J. Philos. Log..

[42]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Combining Knowledge Bases Consisting of First Order Theories , 1991, ISMIS.

[43]  Alberto O. Mendelzon,et al.  Merging Databases Under Constraints , 1998, Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst..

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