- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Second Thoughts About Expert Political Judgment: Reply to the Symposium
Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (4):467-488 (2010)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)My notes
Similar books and articles
Second thoughts about Expert Political Judgment: reply to the symposium.Philip E. Tetlock - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (4):467-488.
Thinking the Unthinkable as a Radical Scientific Project.Steve Fuller - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (4):397-413.
Thinking the Unthinkable as a Radical Scientific Project.Steve Fuller - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (4):397-413.
Putting political experts to the test.Zeljka Buturovic - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (4):389-396.
The trouble with experts.Paul J. Quirk - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (4):449-465.
The Trouble with Experts.Paul J. Quirk - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (4):449-465.
Putting Political Experts to the Test.Zeljka Buturovic - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (4):389-396.
When and why do hedgehogs and foxes differ?Frank C. Keil - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (4):415-426.
When and Why Do Hedgehogs and Foxes Differ?Frank C. Keil - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (4):415-426.
Judging Judgment.Bruce Bueno de Mesquita - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (4):355-388.
Analytics
Added to PP
2017-02-20
Downloads
12 (#317,170)
6 months
6 (#1,472,471)
2017-02-20
Downloads
12 (#317,170)
6 months
6 (#1,472,471)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Against Epistocracy.Paul Gunn - 2019 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 31 (1):26-82.
Political Epistemology, Technocracy, and Political Anthropology: Reply to a Symposium on Power Without Knowledge.Jeffrey Friedman - 2020 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 32 (1):242-367.
References found in this work
Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman - 1983 - Psychological Review 90 (4):293-315.
Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors.Philip E. Tetlock - 2002 - Psychological Review 109 (3):451-471.
Have the experts been weighed, measured, and found wanting?Bryan Caplan - 2007 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 19 (1):81-91.
Thinking the Unthinkable as a Radical Scientific Project.Steve Fuller - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (4):397-413.
The trouble with experts.Paul J. Quirk - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (4):449-465.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-68866f4b87-6mvtb uwo