William Sullivan wrote:
> >Another problem is that people have to be unaware of other people's
> >positions, otherwise they could update on that and then should all
> >end up at the same place.
>
>I'm not clear why they'd have to be ignorant of other people's positions.
>It seems that they could be ignorant of the evidence that has swayed other
>people or the methodology other people use in sifting through evidence. So,
>with limited information and limited information using tools, they could be
>quite aware of other people's conclusions while simply thinking that other
>people are wrong.
>
>Unless, by "position" you mean the evidence and methodology as well as the
>actual conclusions. If that's the case, I agree with you.

No, there is a large literature on "agreeing to disagree" that says that
it is enough to know their position, you don't need to know their evidence.
If you would be at the same position were it not for having different 
information,
and you see they are at a different position, you can use that to infer
something about their information.  And in fact, you can infer enough that
the disagreement should go away.


Robin Hanson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323

Reply via email to