A Role for Judgment Aggregation in Coauthoring Scientific Papers (original) (raw)

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of judgment aggregation in science. How should scientists decide which propositions to assert in a collaborative document? We distinguish the question of what to write in a collaborative document from the question of collective belief. We argue that recent objections to the application of the formal literature on judgment aggregation to the problem of judgment aggregation in science apply to the latter, not the former question. The formal literature has introduced various desiderata for an aggregation procedure. Proposition-wise majority voting emerges as a procedure that satisfies all desiderata which represent norms of science. An interesting consequence is that not all collaborating scientists need to endorse every proposition asserted in a collaborative document.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (42)

  1. Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., DeVries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2010). Extending the Mertonian norms: Scientists' subscriptions to norms of research. Journal of Higher Education, 81(3), 366-393. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0095.
  2. Annas, J. (2001). Moral knowledge as practical knowledge. Social Philosophy and Policy, 18(2), 236-256. doi:10.1017/S0265052500002971. https://www.cambridge.org/core/article/moral-knowledge-as- practical-knowledge/74FBAA9E5F58E549119810BBED68368F.
  3. Bozbay, I ˙., Dietrich, F., & Peters, H. (2014). Judgment aggregation in search for the truth. Games and Economic Behavior, 87, 571-590, ISSN 0899-8256. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2014.02.007. http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825614000384.
  4. Bright, L. K. (2017). On fraud. Philosophical Studies, 174(2), 291-310. doi:10.1007/s11098-016-0682-7. ISSN 1573-0883.
  5. Bruner, J. P. (2013). Policing epistemic communities. Episteme, 10(4), 403-416. doi:10.1017/epi.2013. 34. http://journals.cambridge.org/article\_S1742360013000348.
  6. CDF Collaboration. (2008). Study of multi-muon events produced in p-pbar collisions at sqrt(s)=1.96 tev. Accessed online on October 3, 2016. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.5357v1.
  7. Cohen, L. J. (1992). An essay on belief and acceptance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  8. Dietrich, F., & List, C. (2008a). A liberal paradox for judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare, 31(1), 59-78. ISSN 01761714. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41107909.
  9. Dietrich, F., & List, C. (2008b). Judgment aggregation without full rationality. Social Choice and Welfare, 31(1), 15-39. doi:10.1007/s00355-007-0260-1. ISSN 0176-1714.
  10. Dietrich, F., & List, C. (2010). Majority voting on restricted domains. Journal of Economic Theory, 145(2), 512-543. ISSN 0022-0531. doi:10.1016/j.jet.2010.01.003. http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0022053110000141.
  11. Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  12. Fagan, M. B. (2011). Is there collective scientific knowledge? Arguments from explanation. The Philosophical Quarterly, 61(243), 247-269. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2010.676.x. ISSN 1467-9213.
  13. Gibbs, J. P. (1981). Norms, deviance, and social control: Conceptual matters. New York: Elsevier.
  14. Gilbert, M. (1987). Modelling collective belief. Synthese, 73(1), 185-204. ISSN 00397857. http://www. jstor.org/stable/20116447.
  15. Gilbert, M. (1992). On social facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  16. Hartmann, S., & Sprenger, J. (2012). Judgment aggregation and the problem of tracking the truth. Synthese, 187(1), 209-221. doi:10.1007/s11229-011-0031-5. ISSN 0039-7857.
  17. Huebner, B., Kukla, R., & Winsberg, E. (2017). Making an author in radically collaborative research. In T. Boyer-Kassem, C. Mayo-Wilson, & M. Weisberg (Eds.), Scientific collaboration and collective knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. ICMJE. (2013). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Accessed online on October 3, 2016. http://icmje.org/icmje-recommendations. pdf. King, C. (2013). Single-author papers: A waning share of output, but still providing the tools for progress. Accessed online on October 3, 2016. http://sciencewatch.com/articles/single-author-papers-waning- share-output-still-providing-tools-progress.
  19. Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension. The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 225-239). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  20. Kukla, R. (2012). ''Author TBD'': Radical collaboration in contemporary biomedical research. Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 845-858. ISSN 00318248. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/ 668042.
  21. List, C. (2005). The probability of inconsistencies in complex collective decisions. Social Choice and Welfare, 24(1), 3-32. doi:10.1007/s00355-003-0253-7. ISSN 1432-217X.
  22. List, C. (2014). Three kinds of collective attitudes. Erkenntnis, 79(9), 1601-1622. doi:10.1007/s10670- 014-9631-z. ISSN 1572-8420.
  23. List, C., & Pettit, P. (2002). Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy, 18, 89-110. ISSN 1474-0028. http://journals.cambridge.org/article\_S0266267102001098.
  24. Magnus, P. D. (2013). What scientists know is not a function of what scientists know. Philosophy of Science, 80(5), 840-849. ISSN 00318248. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/673718.
  25. Mayo-Wilson, C., Zollman, K. J. S., & Danks, D. (2011). The independence thesis: When individual and social epistemology diverge. Philosophy of Science, 78(4), 653-677. ISSN 00318248. http://www. jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661777.
  26. Merton, R. K. (1942). A note on science and democracy. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1(1-2), 115-126.
  27. Mulkay, M. J. (1976). Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information, 15(4-5), 637-656. 10. 1177/053901847601500406. http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/15/4-5/637.short.
  28. Priest, G. (2006). Doubt truth to be a liar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  29. Rolin, K. (2015). Values in science: The case of scientific collaboration. Philosophy of Science, 82(2), 157-177. ISSN 00318248. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/680522.
  30. Rudner, R. (1953). The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments. Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 1-6. ISSN 00318248. http://www.jstor.org/stable/185617.
  31. Schwitzgebel, E. (2015). Belief. In E. N. Zalta, (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Summer 2015 edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/belief/.
  32. Solomon, M. (2006). Groupthink versus the wisdom of crowds: The social epistemology of deliberation and dissent. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 44(S1), 28-42. doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.2006. tb00028.x. ISSN 2041-6962.
  33. Solomon, M. (2007). The social epistemology of NIH consensus conferences. In H. Kincaid, & J. McKitrick (Eds.) Establishing medical reality, pp. 167-177. Springer Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/1-4020-5216-2_12.
  34. Solomon, M. (2011). Group judgement and the medical consensus conference. In F. Gifford (Ed.), Philosophy of Medicine (pp. 239-254). New York: Elsevier.
  35. Solomon, M. (2015). Making medical knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  36. Taubes, G. (1986). Nobel dreams: Power, deceit and the ultimate experiment. New York: Tempus Books.
  37. Wagenknecht, S. (2015). Facing the incompleteness of epistemic trust: Managing dependence in scientific practice. Social Epistemology, 29(2), 160-184. doi:10.1080/02691728.2013.794872.
  38. Wilson, D. S. (2015). The spandrels of San Marco revisited: An interview with Richard C. Lewontin. Accessed online on October 3, 2016. https://evolution-institute.org/article/the-spandrels-of-san- marco-revisited-an-interview-with-richard-c-lewontin/.
  39. Winsberg, E., Huebner, B., & Kukla, R. (2014). Accountability and values in radically collaborative research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 46(1), 16-23. http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368113001295.
  40. Wortman, P. M., Vinokur, A., & Sechrest, L. (1988). Do consensus conferences work? A process evaluation of the NIH Consensus Development Program. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 13(3), 469-498. doi:10.1215/03616878-13-3-469. http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/13/3/ 469.abstract.
  41. Wray, K. B. (2001). Collective belief and acceptance. Synthese, 129(3), 319-333. doi:10.1023/A: 1013148515033. ISSN 1573-0964.
  42. Wray, K. B. (2014). Collaborative research, deliberation, and innovation. Episteme, 11:291-303. 9 ISSN 1750-0117. doi:10.1017/epi.2014.9. http://journals.cambridge.org/article\_S1742360014000094.