In this article we suggest that the research area of epistemology of disagreement should be critically applied to the problem of describing multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making (ME-MCDM), while providing an epistemic conceptualization of experts as epistemic peers. We explore some preliminary outcomes of using Dung’s computational framework for argumentation in ME-MCDM with conceptual considerations on the role of formal constraints and rationality approaches for epistemic peer disagreement, such as provided by David Christensen [2], inclusive of epistemic and pragmatic rationality, synchronic and diachronic rationality, and global and local aspects thereof
On modeling multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making argumentation and disagreement: Philosophical and computational approaches reconsidered
Bistarelli, Stefano;
2018
Abstract
In this article we suggest that the research area of epistemology of disagreement should be critically applied to the problem of describing multi-experts multi-criteria decision-making (ME-MCDM), while providing an epistemic conceptualization of experts as epistemic peers. We explore some preliminary outcomes of using Dung’s computational framework for argumentation in ME-MCDM with conceptual considerations on the role of formal constraints and rationality approaches for epistemic peer disagreement, such as provided by David Christensen [2], inclusive of epistemic and pragmatic rationality, synchronic and diachronic rationality, and global and local aspects thereofI documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
