Members RSS
>> CERIMES VIDEO PODCAST FEEDS
Conférence de Vincent Lefèvre, conservateur au musée Guimet, commissaire de l'exposition, enregistrée le 7 février 2008 au Musée Guimet. La sagesse collective : principes et mécanismes La sagesse collective : principes et mécanismes La sagesse collective : principes et mécanismes La sagesse collective : principes et mécanismesPaharpur, le plus grand monastère bouddhique d'Asie du Sud
Dans le cadre des Conférences Iéna : Art, archéologie et anthropologie de l'Asie (EFEO MUSÉE GUIMET)
Cycle de conférence 2007-2008 : Images et Imagination : le Bouddhisme en Asie.
Classé au patrimoine mondial de l'humanité (UNESCO) et principal site archéologique du Bangladesh, le monastère bouddhique de Paharpur a fait l'objet de plusieurs campagnes de fouilles, sans pour autant révéler tous ses mystères. Cette conférence se propose d'en retracer l'histoire et d'envisager quelques nouvelles interprétations.The Wisdom of Crowds Reconsidered
Colloque des 22-23 mai 2008, organisé par l'Institut du Monde Contemporain du Collège de France, sous la direction du Professeur Jon Elster.
Intervention de Emile Servan Schreiber.Collaborative Filtering: The Wisdom of the Internet
Colloque des 22-23 mai 2008, organisé par l'Institut du Monde Contemporain du Collège de France, sous la direction du Professeur Jon Elster.
Intervention de Gloria Origgi.
Internet not only provides the hugest information storage ever, but also the most sophisticated system of information retrieval people have dealt with in the history of culture. Information is evaluated and filtered before reaching its final destination. On Internet, people access content via the evaluations that other people have already left on that content. From search engines to reputational systems such as eBay, Internet is developing as a giant ranking system in which people's advices and preferences leave tracks that orients other people's advices and preferences: in many cases evaluation precedes or even replaces information: all that people look at on the Internet is tracks of opinions of others that will modify their judgement on a subject matter. In this paper, I provide an epistemological analysis of how the various techniques of collaborative evaluation work in Internet, to what extent are they reliable cues of quality and how the collective wisdom produced by the interaction of human preferences and search algorithms is achieved.
I will also try to argue that accessing evaluations and rankings is becoming a primary epistemological aim in knowledge search: I'll conclude by presenting a sketch of a second-order epistemology in which evaluative and ranking measures become the core ingredient in the extraction of information from a corpus of knowledge.
Gloria Origgi is a philosopher at CNRS, Institut Nicod, Paris. Her main focus of research is social epistemology, in particular, the role of trust and reputation in the construction of knowledge. She has participated into many projects on the application of IT to the design of knowledge and is the founder of the www.interdisciplines.org project. Her last book is Qu'est-ce que la confiance? VRIN, Paris, 2008.The Optimal Design of a Constitution-making Process
Colloque des 22-23 mai 2008, organisé par l'Institut du Monde Contemporain du Collège de France, sous la direction du Professeur Jon Elster.
Intervention de Jon Elster.
There are two normative questions one might ask about constitutions: What is a good constitution? What is a good constitution-making process? In the paper I mainly focus on the second issue, but also discuss the relation between the two. Important desiderata of a constituent assembly include having a number of delegates that is both large enough to prevent bargaining and small enough to allow for a genuine exchange of views; a mode of election of delegates that will generate sufficient diversity both of preferences and of information; a focus on issues on which interest has a minimal purchase; and an organization of the proceedings that minimizes the scope of passion. I also argue that the process ought to hourglass-shaped, with wide public deliberation before the assembly meets and deliberation followed by a referendum after it has produced its proposal.
Jon Elster is a philosopher, sociologist, and political theorist, author of numerous books on the philosophy of social sciences and rational choice theory (e.g., Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences:
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989, and Ulysses Unbound, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000). His work can be read as an investigation of the question of individual and collective decisions. He currently teaches at the Collège de France in Paris, where he holds the Chaire of Rationality and Social Sciences.The Optimal Rule of Decision-making for Areopagus: Public Voting or Apparent Consensus?
Colloque des 22-23 mai 2008, organisé par l'Institut du Monde Contemporain du Collège de France, sous la direction du Professeur Jon Elster.
Intervention de Philippe Urfalino.
Areopagus, as are constitutional courts and committees of experts, are expected to reach decisions which must be justified by reasons. Their members are not elected but appointed with a reference to their specific competence. With regard to the nature of the decisions they make and the intellectual quality of their members, areopagus are strongly associated with an idea of a certain kind of wisdom. One of the questions areopagus are regularly confronted with, is : what rules of collective decision-making warrant that a gathering of wise persons will indeed result in a wise collective decision ? It appears that the answer is not always the same: in some cases, they opt for public voting with the rule of majority, and in other cases for what I call decision by apparent consensus (when a proposition receives no more objection.
Using mainly the examples from, advice committees at the FDA for pharmaceutical drugs and of their equivalent committees at the French Agency for Medical Drugs, the paper will raise three main questions:
How has the problem of the quality of the collective decisions been conceived and thought in the history of these committees?
What kind of rules and what justifications of these rules have been adopted?
What evidence we can collect about the quality of the decisions made with these rules?
Director of research at Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and Professor at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Philippe Urfalino dedicated several years to the study of cultural policies. His research is currently concentred on two topics, collective decision-making, and the politics of pharmaceutical drugs. Professor Urfalino's recent publications include : L'invention de la politique culturelle, Hachette-Pluriel, 2004 ; Le grand méchant loup pharmaceutique. Angoisse ou vigilance ? Textuel, 2005 ; « La délibération n'est pas une conversation », Négociations, 2005, n°2 ;
« La décision par consensus apparent. Nature et propriétés », Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales, Tome XLV, 2007, n° 136.
Previous page: IAMS News
Next page: Pictures Gallery