Simpson, RM; (2013) Epistemic peerhood and the epistemology of disagreement. Philosophical Studies , 164 (2) pp. 561-577. 10.1007/s11098-012-9869-8.

Preview

Text Epistemic-Peerhood.pdf - Accepted Version Download (214kB) | Preview

Abstract

In disagreements about trivial matters, it often seems appropriate for disputing parties to adopt a 'middle ground' view about the disputed matter. But in disputes about more substantial controversies (e.g. in ethics, religion, or politics) this sort of doxastic conduct can seem viciously acquiescent. How should we distinguish between the two kinds of cases, and thereby account for our divergent intuitions about how we ought to respond to them? One possibility is to say that ceding ground in a trivial dispute is appropriate because the disputing parties are usually epistemic peers within the relevant domain, whereas in a more substantial disagreement the disputing parties rarely, if ever, qualify as epistemic peers, and so 'sticking to one's guns' is usually the appropriate doxastic response. My aim in this paper is to explain why this way of drawing the desired distinction is ultimately problematic, even if it seems promising at first blush. © 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Download activity - last month

Export as JSONXMLCSV

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Archive Staff Only

View Item