https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.2307%2F3343168.pdf

Development as Freedom

Anarchy, state, and utopia

政治自由主义 = Political liberalism

The morality of freedom

In this landmark book, Scott Page redefines the way we understand ourselves in relation to one another. The Difference is about how we think in groups--and how our collective wisdom exceeds the sum of its parts. Why can teams of people find better solutions than brilliant individuals working alone? And why are the best group decisions and predictions those that draw upon the very qualities that make each of us unique? The answers lie in diversity--not what we look like outside, but what we look like within, our distinct tools and abilities. The Difference reveals that progress and innovation may depend less on lone thinkers with enormous IQs than on diverse people working together and capitalizing on their individuality. Page shows how groups that display a range of perspectives outperform groups of like-minded experts. Diversity yields superior outcomes, and Page proves it using his own cutting-edge research. Moving beyond the politics that cloud standard debates about diversity, he explains why difference beats out homogeneity, whether you're talking about citizens in a democracy or scientists in the laboratory. He examines practical ways to apply diversity's logic to a host of problems, and along the way offers fascinating and surprising examples, from the redesign of the Chicago "El" to the truth about where we store our ketchup. Page changes the way we understand diversity--how to harness its untapped potential, how to understand and avoid its traps, and how we can leverage our differences for the benefit of all.

Prologue to The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies

Because contemporary scientific research is conducted by groups of scientists, understanding scientific progress requires understanding this division of cognitive labor. We present a novel agent‐based model of scientific research in which scientists divide their labor to explore an unknown epistemic landscape. Scientists aim to find the most epistemically significant research approaches. We consider three different search strategies that scientists can adopt for exploring the landscape. In the first, scientists work alone and do not let the discoveries of the community influence their actions. This is compared with two social research strategies: Followers are biased toward what others have already discovered, and we find that pure populations of these scientists do less well than scientists acting independently. However, pure populations of mavericks, who try to avoid research approaches that have already been taken, vastly outperform the other strategies. Finally, we show that, in mixed populations, mav...

/pdf/epistemic-landscapes-and-the-division-of-cognitive-labor-3osp25eflz.pdf

Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor

Very diverse societies pose real problems for Rawlsian models of public reason.　This is for two reasons: first, public reason is unable accommodate diverse perspectives in determining a regulative ideal. 　Second, regulative ideals are unable to respond to social change.　 While models based on public reason focus on the justification of principles, this book suggests that we need to orient our normative theories more toward discovery and experimentation. 　The book develops a unique approach to social contract theory that focuses on diverse perspectives. It offers a new moral stance that author Ryan Muldoon calls, "The View From Everywhere," which allows for substantive, fundamental moral disagreement.　 This stance is used to develop a bargaining model in which agents can cooperate despite seeing different perspectives. Rather than arguing for an ideal contract or particular principles of justice, Muldoon outlines a procedure for iterated revisions to the rules of a social contract.　 It expands Mill's conception of experiments in living to help form a foundational principle for social contract theory. 　By embracing this kind of experimentation, we move away from a conception of justice as an end state, and toward a conception of justice as a trajectory.
Listen to Robert Talisse interview Ryan Muldoon about Social Contract Theory for a Diverse World on the podcast, New Books in Philosophy: http://tinyurl.com/j9oq324

Also, read Ryan Muldoon’s related Niskanen Center article, "Diversity and Disagreement are the Solution, Not the Problem," published Jan. 10, 2017:　 https://niskanencenter.org/blog/diversity-disagreement-solution-not-problem/

Social Contract Theory for a Diverse World: Beyond Tolerance

Previous literature has demonstrated the important role that trust plays in developing and maintaining well-functioning societies. However, if we are to learn how to increase levels of trust in society, we must first understand why people choose to trust others. One potential answer to this is that people view trust as normative: there is a social norm for trusting that imposes punishment for noncompliance. To test this, we report data from a survey with salient rewards to elicit people’s attitudes regarding the punishment of distrusting behavior in a trust game. Our results show that people do not behave as though trust is a norm. Our participants expected that most people would not punish untrusting investors, regardless of whether the potential trustee was a stranger or a friend. In contrast, our participants behaved as though being trustworthy is a norm. Most participants believed that most people would punish someone who failed to reciprocate a stranger’s or a friend’s trust. We conclude that, while ...

Trustworthiness is a social norm, but trusting is not:

In epistemology and the philosophy of science, there has been an increasing interest in the social aspects of belief acquisition In particular, there has been a focus on the division of cognitive labor in science This essay explores several different models of the division of cognitive labor, with particular focus on Kitcher, Strevens, Weisberg and Muldoon, and Zollman The essay then shows how many of the benefits of the division of cognitive labor flow from leveraging agent diversity The essay concludes by examining the benefits and burdens of diversity, particularly in the evaluative diversity that can be found in interdisicplinary science

Diversity and the Division of Cognitive Labor

In this paper we argue that there is a kind of moral disagreement that survives the Rawlsian veil of ignorance. While a veil of ignorance eliminates sources of disagreement stemming from self-interest, it does not do anything to eliminate deeper sources of disagreement. These disagreements not only persist, but transform their structure once behind the veil of ignorance. We consider formal frameworks for exploring these differences in structure between interested and disinterested disagreement, and argue that consensus models offer us a solution concept for disagreements behind the veil of ignorance.

/pdf/disagreement-behind-the-veil-of-ignorance-50ibkwax3g.pdf

Ryan Muldoon

Papers

Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor

Social Contract Theory for a Diverse World: Beyond Tolerance

Trustworthiness is a social norm, but trusting is not:

Diversity and the Division of Cognitive Labor

Disagreement behind the veil of ignorance