A Game-Theoretic Approach to Peer Disagreement

Remco Heesen, Pieter van der Kolk*

*Bijbehorende auteur voor dit werk

OnderzoeksoutputAcademicpeer review

4 Citaten (Scopus)
193 Downloads (Pure)

Samenvatting

In this paper we propose and analyze a game-theoretic model of the epistemology of peer disagreement. In this model, the peers' rationality is evaluated in terms of their probability of ending the disagreement with a true belief. We find that different strategies-in particular, one based on the Steadfast View and one based on the Conciliatory View-are rational depending on the truth-sensitivity of the individuals involved in the disagreement. Interestingly, the Steadfast and the Conciliatory Views can even be rational simultaneously in some circumstances. We tentatively provide some reasons to favor the Conciliatory View in such cases. We argue that the game-theoretic perspective is a fruitful one in this debate, and this fruitfulness has not been exhausted by the present paper.
Originele taal-2English
Pagina's (van-tot)1345-1368
Aantal pagina's24
TijdschriftErkenntnis
Volume81
Nummer van het tijdschrift6
DOI's
StatusPublished - dec-2016

Citeer dit