Logical theory choice: a fragmented view

In a series of recent papers, Graham Priest developed a model for logical theory choice, called “Weighted Aggregate Model” (WAM). The idea is simple: every theoretical virtue has a weight, and every logic has a score for each virtue. By counting the weighted aggregate, we can compare the final score of each logic and determine the best one. In this paper, I expand Priests model by incorporating some concepts from Social Choice theory. In my alternative model, agents have a subjective weighing of theoretical virtues; not everyone values each virtue in the same way. The model predicts that agents will split into different epistemic communities to avoid uninformative or paradoxical choices. This “fragmented” model of logical theory choice can explain the existence and dynamics of different logical communities.