Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
How should we revise our beliefs in response to the expressed probabilistic opinions of experts on some proposition when these experts are in disagreement? In this paper I examine the suggestion that in such circumstances we should adopt a linear average of the experts’ opinions and consider whether such a belief revision policy is compatible with Bayesian conditionalisation. By looking at situations in which full or partial deference to the expressed opinions of others is required by Bayesianism I show that only in trivial circumstances are the requirements imposed by linear averaging compatible with it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Richard Bradley (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: