| Authors |
Koundouri, P., Pittis, N. and Samartzis, P. |
| Title |
Alternative Ways of Information Processing as a Source of Sustainable and Rational Peer Disagreement |
| Abstract |
Consider an event of interest B and another event A which is viewed as information for B. When a decision maker (DM) evaluates the effect of A on B, she evaluates the degree to which she asserts the indicative conditional "if A then B", written as A ---> B. In the context of the standard Bayesian confirmation theory, the degree of assertability, As(A ---> B) is given by DM's subjective conditional probability P(B | A). However, the Bayesian interpretation is not the only rational interpretation of As(A ---> B). An alternative interpretation is that As(A ---> B) goes by the probability that the proposition A ---> B is true, that is by DM's unconditional probability P(A ---> B). It is now widely accepted that there is no interpretation of "--->" that ensures the genral validity of P(A ---> B) = P(B | A). Hence, there are multiple truth-conditional interpretations of "--->" each corresponding to a distinct way of information processing. One of these interpretations, namely the material implication of the Propositional Logic, competes favorably with the Bayesian interpretation on normative grounds. As a result, two decision makers can disagree about their posterior probabilities of B even if they share the same information A and have identical prior probability functions. |
| Creation Date |
2025-01-09 |
| Keywords |
Information processing, rationality, disagreement, bayesianism, logic |
| Classification JEL |
C44, D81, D83, D89 |
| File |
2025.Information.processing.pdf (376681 bytes) |
| File-Function |
First version |
|
Copyright © 2009 [D.I.E.S.S. A.U.E.B.]. All rights reserved.
|
