How can we understand the value of consensus among independent thinkers? An ambitious project led by Olle Risberg (Uppsala University) and Daniel Fogal (NYU Center for Bioethics), "The Wisdom of Crowds - The Epistemological Importance of Consensus and Convergence," explores the difficulties of collective reasoning in the pursuit of answers.
In a world where different opinions are becoming increasingly polarized, it is important to understand the epistemic significance of consensus among independent thinkers. This fascinating research project delves into the subject and explores the philosophical foundations of consensus, the role of independence, and the effect of collective deliberation.
At the core of the project lies the question: When several individuals independently arrive at the same conclusion, does it provide evidence for the truth of their shared beliefs?
First, they focus on the philosophical foundations of the problem. They examine ideas from philosophers such as René Descartes and David Hume, who have expressed skepticism about the value of consensus, as well as thinkers like Charles Sanders Peirce and John Stuart Mill, who have advocated for the epistemic importance of consensus.
Next, they tackle the concept of independence in consensus. They explore the famous Condorcet's Jury Theorem, which asserts that consensus among independent thinkers can be evidence of the truth of their shared beliefs. However, the theorem's applicability to real-world cases has been questioned due to its strict competence and independence requirements. The researchers aim to develop alternative strategies that are not dependent on the theorem and focus on the idea of methodological robustness. This strategy argues that consensus among independent thinkers is significant because it suggests that their shared beliefs are robust across different methods, datasets, and background assumptions.
To evaluate this idea, the researchers will address several questions, such as the concept of independence, the role of methodological robustness in belief justification, and how this strategy relates to the jury theorem. By exploring these questions, the project aims to offer a more nuanced understanding of the epistemic value of consensus among independent thinkers.
Furthermore, the project will examine the process of collective deliberation, often exemplified in scientific inquiry. It examines how the interactive aspect of this process, where individuals compare and discuss different opinions, contributes to achieving consensus. The researchers investigate how the truth in the shared beliefs achieved through collective deliberation can be explained and promoted.
An important concept that will be discussed is the difference between communication and blind deference. Some theorists have argued that the interaction that occurs during collective deliberation violates the independence requirement in the jury theorem. However, researchers such as Estlund argue that it is blind deference, rather than communication, that independence should exclude. If deference is only partial in certain respects, it may be less problematic from an epistemic perspective. The researchers explore which dimensions are relevant and how the concept of blind deference should be more specifically defined.
This suggests that the methodological robustness strategy may be better suited than strategies based on the jury theorem to explain the epistemic value of collective deliberation. The robust method provides a more direct explanation for the significance of consensus that arises against a background of disagreement and can more easily handle aspects such as the sharing of evidence that the interactive process involves.
By examining these issues in detail, the research project aims to improve our understanding of the epistemic significance of consensus among independent thinkers and the processes through which such consensus is achieved. The results of the project may have far-reaching implications for how we value collective reasoning and make decisions in an increasingly polarized world.
More about the project here:
https://www.filosofi.uu.se/forskning/forskningsprojekt/massans-visdom/
https://www.filosofi.uu.se/digitalAssets/901/c_901576-l_3-k_wisdom-of-the-crowd-for-web.pdf