Logos and episteme
Colin RULOFF
ABSTRACT: In a widely cited paper, Thomas Mulligan argues that conciliationism generates three paradoxes or puzzles when this theory is applied to a class of propositions related to epistemic peerhood. Mulligan claims that these three paradoxes not only pose a significant theoretical challenge to conciliationism, but that they are potentially fatal to the theory. In what follows, I argue that Mulligan’s three paradoxes implicitly depend upon epistemic principles that are false or not obviously true. Since this is so, Mulligan has failed to show that conciliationism generates any paradoxical results related to epistemic peerhood.
