Knowledge Tree
peer disagreement
Facts (22)
Sources
Social Epistemology – Introduction to Philosophy - Rebus Press press.rebus.community 14 facts
claimRational permissivism (RP) is the alternative to rational uniqueness, which posits that two peers might justifiably disagree about a proposition because both have attitudes within the range the evidence permits.
claimThe skeptical argument regarding peer disagreement suggests that if an individual encounters a peer who is equally fair-minded, intelligent, and acquainted with the relevant arguments, the individual has a reason to abandon or weaken their own belief.
claimThe more likely it is that an individual and a disagreeing party are competent epistemic peers, the stronger the evidence provided by that disagreement that the individual's own view might be incorrect.
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.
claimAn individual is not justified in abandoning a belief solely because someone else disagrees, if the best explanation for the disagreement is that the other person is ignorant, misinformed, biased, or mentally compromised.
claimOne objection to the skeptical argument regarding peer disagreement is that true epistemic peers—individuals who are known to be just as likely to be right as oneself—are rare, potentially limiting the scope of the skeptical conclusion.
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).
claimThe 'steadfast view' in social epistemology is the position that it is sometimes or frequently justified to continue holding one's original belief even when encountering a peer who disagrees.
claimAwareness of peer disagreement should exert 'skeptical pressure' on beliefs and make individuals less confident in the accuracy of their initial judgments.
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.
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.
claimWhen an individual discovers someone disagrees with their belief, a justified response is sometimes to adjust their belief to align with the other person.
Social Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Feb 26, 2001 6 facts
claimAccording to Lackey's justificationist position, the required change in confidence during a peer disagreement varies: in some cases it requires a significant change, in others no change, and in some cases a moderate change.
claimTitelbaum (2015) offers an argument restricted to the domain of beliefs regarding the norms of rationality themselves, which posits that learning of a peer disagreement should not affect one's confidence on a topic because the fact of disagreement is not evidence bearing on the topic.
claimRussell et al. (2015) argue that social epistemology approaches focusing on individual topics of interest when addressing peer disagreement and testimony require a holistic approach to aggregation.
claimLackey (2010) proposes a 'justificationist' position on peer disagreement, arguing that rationality in such cases is determined by what one's total evidence supports after incorporating the evidence acquired from the disagreement itself.
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.
claimThe problems of belief aggregation, peer disagreement, and testimony are entangled because if a rational group adopts an aggregated belief, it may be rational for an individual in that group to adopt the same belief after learning the credences of their peers.
Epistemological Problems of Testimony plato.stanford.edu Apr 1, 2021 1 fact
claimJennifer Lackey discusses experts and peer disagreement in a 2018 chapter.
Social epistemology - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy rep.routledge.com 1 fact
claimSocial epistemologists have extensively studied testimony, expert testimony, and peer disagreement.