BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:ILLC Website X-WR-TIMEZONE:Europe/Amsterdam BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/Amsterdam X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/Amsterdam BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:CEST DTSTART:19700329T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=-1SU END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET DTSTART:19701025T030000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=10;BYDAY=-1SU END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT UID:/NewsandEvents/Archives/2017/newsitem/8612/12- --13-April-2017-Workshop-on-Group-decision-making- in-scientific-expert-committees-Tilburg-The-Nether lands DTSTAMP:20170302T150404 SUMMARY:Workshop on Group decision-making in scien tific expert committees, Tilburg, The Netherlands DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20170412 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20170413 LOCATION:Tilburg, The Netherlands DESCRIPTION:Scientists are regularly called upon t o serve as experts advisors for various institutio ns, be it on the authorization of a new drug, the effects of climate change, or a monetary policy. T ypically, expert advisers are constituted in panel s, who are to utter their advice collectively. Thi s raises a variety of questions about the decision -making process: How should the group best take ad vantage of the individual strengths and expertise? How to wager individual opinions and how to ideal ly deal with peer disagreement? One may want to de vise special deliberation procedures to avoid grou pthink, and to install voting rules tailored to th e situation at hand. This workshop aims at gather ing researchers who tackle these normative questio ns, from a variety of perspectives. We aim to brin g together approaches from fields such as philosop hy of science, social epistemology, political phil osophy, political science, judgment aggregation, s ocial choice theory, or agent-based modeling that provide inside on these problems. We are particula rly looking for papers who are concerned with the specificity of both group decision-making and scie ntific expertise (compared to, say, an individual scientist giving advice, or a group of friends cho osing a restaurant). Submissions may cover abstrac t work as well as case studies, and may involve fo rmal tools. Please submit an extended abstract of maximum 1000 words suitable for blind review, tog ether with a short abstract of maximum 100 words. Submissions may cover abstract work as well as cas e studies, and may involve formal tools. X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:
Scientist s are regularly called upon to serve as experts ad visors for various institutions, be it on the auth orization of a new drug, the effects of climate ch ange, or a monetary policy. Typically, expert advi sers are constituted in panels, who are to utter t heir advice collectively. This raises a variety of questions about the decision-making process: How should the group best take advantage of the indivi dual strengths and expertise? How to wager individ ual opinions and how to ideally deal with peer dis agreement? One may want to devise special delibera tion procedures to avoid groupthink, and to instal l voting rules tailored to the situation at hand.< /p>\n\n
This workshop aims at gathering resear chers who tackle these normative questions, from a variety of perspectives. We aim to bring together approaches from fields such as philosophy of scie nce, social epistemology, political philosophy, po litical science, judgment aggregation, social choi ce theory, or agent-based modeling that provide in side on these problems. We are particularly lookin g for papers who are concerned with the specificit y of both group decision-making and scientific exp ertise (compared to, say, an individual scientist giving advice, or a group of friends choosing a re staurant). Submissions may cover abstract work as well as case studies, and may involve formal tools .
Please submit an extended a bstract of maximum 1000 words suitable for blind r eview, together with a short abstract of maximum 1 00 words. Submissions may cover abstract work as w ell as case studies, and may involve formal tools.