Knowledge Tree
Conciliationism
Facts (16)
Sources
Social Epistemology – Introduction to Philosophy - Rebus Press press.rebus.community 9 facts
claimConciliationism is a theory regarding disagreement that may require repeated adjustment of one's beliefs when encountering apparent peers who disagree, though some argue that after an initial instance, maintaining one's position can be a way to sustain previous conciliation.
claimAn objection to the 'conciliationist' view on peer disagreement is that the argument for conciliation is self-defeating because philosophers themselves disagree on the correct response to peer disagreement.
perspectiveConciliationism regarding peer disagreement has potential skeptical consequences because many central beliefs, such as political, religious, scientific, or philosophical views, are subject to disagreement from peers or experts.
claimConciliationism is the view that when epistemic peers disagree about a proposition, they should adopt an attitude closer to their peer's attitude than their initial attitude (Elga 2007).
claimEven those who disagree with conciliationism in theory generally agree in practice that awareness of peer disagreement often necessitates epistemic humility.
claimIf a non-conciliating peer cannot provide a good account for why they are not conciliating, this may undermine the evidence that a conciliationist has for their own position.
claimConciliationism is a theory that may be self-defeating if its opponent holds firm, as it might be true but not justified for belief.
claimThe 'conciliationist' view suggests that if a person encounters a peer who disagrees with them, they should either come to agree with the opponent or maintain their position with less confidence than before.
claimWhen a peer disagrees with an individual regarding a proposition, the Evidence of Evidence Principle suggests this indicates the existence of a comparable body of evidence supporting the peer's view, which typically justifies some degree of conciliation by the individual.
Social Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Feb 26, 2001 4 facts
perspectiveCritics of Conciliationism argue that the view is self-refuting because if Conciliationism is true, then because it is a widely disputed claim, one is not in a position to rationally believe it.
claimThe Equal Weight View, a version of Conciliationism supported by Christensen (2007), Elga (2007), Feldman (2006, 2007), and Matheson (2015), asserts that one ought to assign equal weight to a peer's opinion as to one's own.
claimKelly (2005) proposed the 'right reasons' view as a criticism of Conciliationism.
claimConciliationism is the epistemological view that in cases of peer disagreement, it is rationally required to modify one's confidence in one's own beliefs.
Social Epistemology - Open Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science oecs.mit.edu Jul 24, 2024 3 facts
perspectiveConciliationists argue that when an epistemic peer disagrees with you, you are under a rational obligation to change your view, suspend judgment, or reopen the inquiry.
perspectiveAnti-conciliationists argue that the conciliationist approach to disagreement may be too flexible or lack integrity in contexts involving high-stakes issues, such as the Holocaust, or identity-constituting commitments, such as the existence of God.
perspectiveConciliationists argue that norms of rationality require individuals to update their credence when presented with disconfirmatory evidence from an epistemic peer.