Million Dollar Questions: Why Deliberation is More Than Information Pooling

Social Choice and Welfare (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Models of collective deliberation often assume that the chief aim of a deliberative exchange is the sharing of information. In this paper, we argue that an equally important role of deliberation is to draw participants’ attention to pertinent questions, which can aid the assembly and processing of distributed information by drawing deliberators’ attention to new issues. The assumption of logical omniscience renders classical models of agents’ informational states unsuitable for modelling this role of deliberation. Building on recent insights from psychology, linguistics and philosophy about the role of questions in speech and thought, we propose a different model in which beliefs are treated as answers directed at specific questions. Here, questions are formally represented as partitions of the space of possibilities and individuals’ information states as sets of questions and corresponding partial answers to them. The state of conversation is then characterised by individuals’ information together with the questions under discussion, which can be steered by various deliberative inputs. Using this model, deliberation is then shown to shape collective decisions in ways that classical models cannot capture, allowing for novel explanations of how group consensus is achieved.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Inclusion and the Epistemic Benefits of Deliberation.John B. Min - 2016 - Contemporary Pragmatism 13 (1):48-69.
Probabilistic Opinion Pooling.Franz Dietrich & Christian List - 2016 - In Alan Hájek & Christopher Hitchcock (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bayesian group belief.Franz Dietrich - 2010 - Social Choice and Welfare 35 (4):595-626.
Deliberation, Reasons, and Alternatives.Justin Snedegar - 2018 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 100 (3):682-702.
Worldwide deliberation and public use of reason online.May Thorseth - 2006 - Ethics and Information Technology 8 (4):243-252.
Consensus by aggregation and deliberation.Richard Bradley - 2007 - Hommage a Wlodek: Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz.
Voluntarism and Transparent Deliberation.Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen - 2006 - South African Journal of Philosophy 25 (2):171-176.
Against Deliberation Restrictions.Garrett Pendergraft - 2014 - Religious Studies 50 (3):341-357.
'What-To-Do?': The Heart of Lonergan's Ethics.Philip McShane - 2012 - Journal of Macrodynamic Analysis 7:69-93.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-04-09

Downloads
619 (#27,923)

6 months
184 (#16,175)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Daniel Hoek
Virginia Tech
Richard Bradley
London School of Economics

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Knowledge and belief.Jaakko Hintikka - 1962 - Ithaca, N.Y.,: Cornell University Press.
Context.Robert Stalnaker - 2014 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Inquisitive Semantics.Ivano Ciardelli, Jeroen Groenendijk & Floris Roelofsen - 2018 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Edited by J. A. G. Groenendijk & Floris Roelofsen.
Why Suspend Judging?Jane Friedman - 2017 - Noûs 51 (2):302-326.
Pragmatic Presuppositions.Robert Stalnaker - 1974 - In Context and Content. Oxford University Press. pp. 47--62.

View all 28 references / Add more references