Tag Archives: disagreement

WHAT IS THE EPISTEMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF DISAGREEMENT? (pages 283-298)

N. Gabriel Martin ABSTRACT: Over the past decade, attention to epistemically significant disagreement has centered on the question of whose disagreement qualifies as significant, but ignored another fundamental question: what is the epistemic significance of disagreement? While epistemologists have assumed that disagreement is only significant when it indicates a determinate likelihood that one’s own belief is false, and therefore that ... Read More »

‘PEER DISAGREEMENT’ AND EVIDENCE OF EVIDENCE (pages 379-402)

John BIRO, Fabio LAMPERT ABSTRACT: What the rational thing to do in the face of disagreement by an epistemic peer is has been much discussed recently. Those who think that a peer’s disagreement is itself evidence against one’s belief, as many do, are committed to a special form of epistemic dependence. If such disagreement is really evidence, it seems reasonable to ... Read More »

RELATIVISM, FAULTLESSNESS, AND THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF DISAGREEMENT (pages 137-150)

Micah DUGAS ABSTRACT: Recent years have witnessed a revival of interest in relativism. Proponents have defended various accounts that seek to model the truth-conditions of certain propositions along the lines of standard possible world semantics. The central challenge for such views has been to explain what advantage they have over contextualist theories with regard to the possibility of disagreement. I ... Read More »

PEER DISAGREEMENT: SPECIAL CASES (pages 221-226)

Eric WILAND ABSTRACT: When you discover that an epistemic peer disagrees with you about some matter, does rationality require you to alter your views? Concessivists answer in the affirmative, but their view faces a problem in special cases. As others have noted, if concessivism itself is what’s under dispute, then concessivism seems to undermine itself. But there are other unexplored ... Read More »

EPISTEMIC PEERHOOD, LIKELIHOOD, AND EQUAL WEIGHT (pages 307-344)

Marc Andree WEBER ABSTRACT: Standardly, epistemic peers regarding a given matter are said to be people of equal competence who share all relevant evidence. Alternatively, one can define epistemic peers regarding a given matter as people who are equally likely to be right about that matter. I argue that a definition in terms of likelihood captures the essence of epistemic ... Read More »

DISAGREEMENT AND PHILOSOPHICAL PROGRESS (pages 115-127)

Brent ABLES ABSTRACT: In “Belief in the Face of Controversy,” Hilary Kornblith argues for a radical form of epistemic modesty: given that there has been no demonstrable cumulative progress in the history of philosophy – as there has been in formal logic, math, and science – Kornblith concludes that philosophers do not have the epistemic credibility to be trusted as authorities ... Read More »

Optimizare SEO Carucioare copii Carucioare 3 in 1