Limits...
Rationality: a social-epistemology perspective.

Wenmackers S, Vanpoucke DE, Douven I - Front Psychol (2014)

Bottom Line: Recently, social epistemologists have drawn attention to the fact that epistemic interactions among agents also give rise to important questions concerning rationality.In previous work, we have used a formal model to assess the risk that a particular type of social-epistemic interactions lead agents with initially consistent belief states into inconsistent belief states.Here, we continue this work by investigating the dynamics to which these interactions may give rise in the population as a whole.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Philosophy, University of Groningen Groningen, Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
Both in philosophy and in psychology, human rationality has traditionally been studied from an "individualistic" perspective. Recently, social epistemologists have drawn attention to the fact that epistemic interactions among agents also give rise to important questions concerning rationality. In previous work, we have used a formal model to assess the risk that a particular type of social-epistemic interactions lead agents with initially consistent belief states into inconsistent belief states. Here, we continue this work by investigating the dynamics to which these interactions may give rise in the population as a whole.

No MeSH data available.


Opinion dynamics for M = 1: one face of the opinion density space (ODS). On the left-hand side, each position in the ODS is colored depending on its final state (see main text for details); smaller features are indicated with white ellipses and arrows. On the right-hand side, each position in the ODS is given a gray-scale value depending on how many rounds of updating are required for it to reach its final state; smaller features are indicated with ellipses (purple for zero, orange for one, and blue for two). The value of the BCI threshold is varied: top row D = 0 (minimal), middle row D = 1 (intermediate), and bottom row D = 2 (maximal).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4061898&req=5

Figure 6: Opinion dynamics for M = 1: one face of the opinion density space (ODS). On the left-hand side, each position in the ODS is colored depending on its final state (see main text for details); smaller features are indicated with white ellipses and arrows. On the right-hand side, each position in the ODS is given a gray-scale value depending on how many rounds of updating are required for it to reach its final state; smaller features are indicated with ellipses (purple for zero, orange for one, and blue for two). The value of the BCI threshold is varied: top row D = 0 (minimal), middle row D = 1 (intermediate), and bottom row D = 2 (maximal).

Mentions: For each position in the chosen triangle, we compute the (normalized) opinion profile that it will ultimately evolve to. We represent this by a color. Specifically, the color (R, G, B) (with R, G, B ∈ {0, …, 255}) indicates that the opinion profile at that position will evolve to the opinion profile with barycentric coordinates equal to (G/255, 0, B/255, R/255). For instance, the redder a point, the larger the fraction of agents that will finally adhere to the inconsistent theory, 00. The results depend on the threshold value D and are presented at the left-hand side of Figure 6. For each point, we also indicate after how many steps the final state is reached. We represent this with a gray-scale on the right-hand side of Figure 6.


Rationality: a social-epistemology perspective.

Wenmackers S, Vanpoucke DE, Douven I - Front Psychol (2014)

Opinion dynamics for M = 1: one face of the opinion density space (ODS). On the left-hand side, each position in the ODS is colored depending on its final state (see main text for details); smaller features are indicated with white ellipses and arrows. On the right-hand side, each position in the ODS is given a gray-scale value depending on how many rounds of updating are required for it to reach its final state; smaller features are indicated with ellipses (purple for zero, orange for one, and blue for two). The value of the BCI threshold is varied: top row D = 0 (minimal), middle row D = 1 (intermediate), and bottom row D = 2 (maximal).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4061898&req=5

Figure 6: Opinion dynamics for M = 1: one face of the opinion density space (ODS). On the left-hand side, each position in the ODS is colored depending on its final state (see main text for details); smaller features are indicated with white ellipses and arrows. On the right-hand side, each position in the ODS is given a gray-scale value depending on how many rounds of updating are required for it to reach its final state; smaller features are indicated with ellipses (purple for zero, orange for one, and blue for two). The value of the BCI threshold is varied: top row D = 0 (minimal), middle row D = 1 (intermediate), and bottom row D = 2 (maximal).
Mentions: For each position in the chosen triangle, we compute the (normalized) opinion profile that it will ultimately evolve to. We represent this by a color. Specifically, the color (R, G, B) (with R, G, B ∈ {0, …, 255}) indicates that the opinion profile at that position will evolve to the opinion profile with barycentric coordinates equal to (G/255, 0, B/255, R/255). For instance, the redder a point, the larger the fraction of agents that will finally adhere to the inconsistent theory, 00. The results depend on the threshold value D and are presented at the left-hand side of Figure 6. For each point, we also indicate after how many steps the final state is reached. We represent this with a gray-scale on the right-hand side of Figure 6.

Bottom Line: Recently, social epistemologists have drawn attention to the fact that epistemic interactions among agents also give rise to important questions concerning rationality.In previous work, we have used a formal model to assess the risk that a particular type of social-epistemic interactions lead agents with initially consistent belief states into inconsistent belief states.Here, we continue this work by investigating the dynamics to which these interactions may give rise in the population as a whole.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Philosophy, University of Groningen Groningen, Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
Both in philosophy and in psychology, human rationality has traditionally been studied from an "individualistic" perspective. Recently, social epistemologists have drawn attention to the fact that epistemic interactions among agents also give rise to important questions concerning rationality. In previous work, we have used a formal model to assess the risk that a particular type of social-epistemic interactions lead agents with initially consistent belief states into inconsistent belief states. Here, we continue this work by investigating the dynamics to which these interactions may give rise in the population as a whole.

No MeSH data available.