Epistemology of Disagreement Edited by Bryan Frances (Fordham University)

Related categories
Siblings:
48 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  • Nathan Ballantyne & E. J. Coffman, Uniqueness and Equal Weight.
    Two theses are central to recent work on the epistemology of disagreement: Equal Weight (‘EW’): In cases of epistemic peer disagreement, one should give equal weight to the attitude of a peer and to one’s own attitude.1 Uniqueness (‘U’): For any given proposition and total body of evidence, some doxastic attitude is the one the evidence makes rational (justifies) toward that proposition.
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • John Beatty (2006). Masking Disagreement Among Experts. Episteme 3 (1-2).
    : There are many reasons why scientific experts may mask disagreement and endorse a position publicly as "jointly accepted." In this paper I consider the inner workings of a group of scientists charged with deciding not only a technically difficult issue, but also a matter of social and political importance: the maximum acceptable dose of radiation. I focus on how, in this real world situation, concerns with credibility, authority, and expertise shaped the process by which this group negotiated the competing (...)
    In my reading list   |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Mark Bevir (2003). Notes Toward an Analysis of Conceptual Change. Social Epistemology 17 (1):55 – 63.
    This paper analyses conceptual change. A rejection of pure experience has prompted philosophers of science to adopt a certain perspective from which to view changes of belief. Popper, Kuhn, and others have analysed conceptual change in terms of problems or anomalies, that is, in terms of contingent reasoning about issues posed in the context of an inherited web of belief. This paper explores a more general analysis of conceptual change in dialogue with these philosophers of science. Because changes of belief (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • David Christensen (2009). Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy. Philosophy Compass 4 (5):756-767.
    How much should your confidence in your beliefs be shaken when you learn that others – perhaps 'epistemic peers' who seem as well-qualified as you are – hold beliefs contrary to yours? This article describes motivations that push different philosophers towards opposite answers to this question. It identifies a key theoretical principle that divides current writers on the epistemology of disagreement. It then examines arguments bearing on that principle, and on the wider issue. It ends by describing some outstanding questions (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • David Christensen (2007). Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News. Philosophical Review 116 (2):187-217.
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Adam Elga (2009). How to Disagree About How to Disagree. In Ted Warfield & Richard Feldman (eds.), Disagreement. Oup.
    To appear in Richard Feldman and Ted Warfield (eds.) Disagreement, forthcoming from Oxford University Press.
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Adam Elga (2007). Reflection and Disagreement. Noûs 41 (3):478–502.
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: blackwell-synergy.com philsci-archive.pitt.edu   | Scholar | More..
  • David Enoch, Not Just a Truthometer: Taking Oneself Seriously (but Not Too Seriously) in Cases of Peer Disagreement.
    1. The Question, and Some Preliminaries Suppose you trust someone – call him Adam – to be your epistemic peer with regard to a certain topic, for instance philosophy. If asked to evaluate the probability of you giving a correct answer to an unspecified philosophical question and the probability of Adam doing so, you give roughly the same answer. You treat Adam as your philosophical peer (and for now we can safely assume that he is indeed your peer, and that (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Theodore J. Everett (2001). The Rationality of Science and the Rationality of Faith. Journal of Philosophy 98 (1):19-42.
    In my reading list   |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | More..
  • Branden Fitelson & David Jehle, What is the “Equal Weight View”?
    Suppose two agents, S1 and S2, are epistemic peers regarding a proposition p: that is, suppose S1 and S2 are equally competent, equally impartial, and equally able to evaluate and assess the relevant evidence regarding p (we will call such propositions p peer-propositions for S1 and S2). After carefully reflecting on the salient evidence for p, suppose S1 and S2 discover that they disagree about p. For instance, S1 might believe the defendant is guilty, while S2 believes the defendant is (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: fitelson.org   | Scholar | More..
  • Bryan Frances, Skeptical Stories: Introduction to Live Skepticism.
    The epistemological consequences of paradox are paradoxical. They can be usefully generated by telling a series of once-upon-a-time stories that make various philosophical points, starting out innocent and ending up, well, paradoxical.
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Bryan Frances, Discovering Disagreeing Epistemic Peers and Superiors.
    What should you do when you discover that someone firmly disagrees with you on some claim? Suppose you know that someone has seen all your evidence and you’ve seen all hers. Suppose further that you know that both of you have evaluated that common body of evidence for about the same length of time. You also know that she’s about as clever, thorough, and open-minded as you are, both generally and with respect to the issues at hand. You know that (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Bryan Frances, Philosophy Sabotages Knowledge.
    Many of the best philosophers endorse purely philosophical error theories, theories that do not have much empirical support and reject large swaths of our most commonsensical beliefs. Often enough those of us who are philosophers of average abilities know full well that we are no experts on the topics in question even though we think all the admittedly superior philosophers are wrong. I argue that in this situation either (a) the average philosopher’s true commonsensical beliefs don’t amount to knowledge, or (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: fordham.edu   | Scholar | More..
  • Bryan Frances (forthcoming). The Reflective Epistemic Renegade. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.
    Philosophers often find themselves in disagreement with contemporary philosophers they know full well to be their epistemic superiors on the topics relevant to the disagreement. This looks epistemically irresponsible. I offer a detailed investigation of this problem of the reflective epistemic renegade. I argue that although in some cases the renegade is not epistemically blameworthy, and the renegade situation is significantly less common than most would think, in a troublesome number of cases in which the situation arises the renegade is (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Bryan Frances (forthcoming). Disagreement. In Duncan Pritchard & Sven Bernecker (eds.), Routledge Companion to Epistemology. Routledge.
    This is a short essay that presents what I take to be the main questions regarding the epistemology of disagreement.
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Bryan Frances (2008). Live Skeptical Hypotheses. In John Greco (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Skepticism. Oxford.
    Those of us who take skepticism seriously typically have two relevant beliefs: (a) it’s plausible (even if false) that in order to know that I have hands I have to be able to epistemically neutralize, to some significant degree, some skeptical hypotheses, such as the brain-in-a-vat (BIV) one; and (b) it’s also plausible (even if false) that I can’t so neutralize those hypotheses. There is no reason for us to also think (c) that the BIV hypothesis, for instance, is plausible (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Bryan Frances (2008). Spirituality, Expertise, and Philosophers. In Jon Kvanvig (ed.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion. Oxford.
    We all can identify many contemporary philosophy professors we know to be theists of some type or other. We also know that often enough their nontheistic beliefs are as epistemically upstanding as the non-theistic beliefs of philosophy professors who aren’t theists. In fact, the epistemic-andnon-theistic lives of philosophers who are theists are just as epistemically upstanding as the epistemic-and-non-theistic lives of philosophers who aren’t theists. Given these and other, similar, facts, there is good reason to think that the pro-theistic beliefs (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Bryan Frances (2005). When a Skeptical Hypothesis is Live. Noûs 39 (4):559–595.
    I’m going to argue for a set of restricted skeptical results: roughly put, we don’t know that fire engines are red, we don’t know that we sometimes have pains in our lower backs, we don’t know that John Rawls was kind, and we don’t even know that we believe any of those truths. However, people unfamiliar with philosophy and cognitive science do know all those things. The skeptical argument is traditional in form: here’s a skeptical hypothesis; you can’t epistemically neutralize (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Bryan Frances (2005). Preface to 'Scepticism Comes Alive'. OUP.
    I once overheard a telling conversation between two of my colleagues. One asked the other about a new book on a topic of some importance to both of them. He asked whether they would have to do anything different because of the book. The second colleague said not, so the first colleague said he would not read the book. The conversation encapsulates an excellent test of the worth of a philosophical work: an idea is important if as a result of (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this book  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Stacie Friend & Peter Ludlow (2003). Disagreement and Deference: Is Diversity of Opinion a Precondition for Thought? Philosophical Perspectives 17 (1):115–139.
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: interscience.wiley.com   | Scholar | More..
  • Yves Gingras (2007). "Please, Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood": The Role of Argumentation in a Sociology of Academic Misunderstandings. Social Epistemology 21 (4):369 – 389.
    Academic debates are so frequent and omnipresent in most disciplines, particularly the social sciences and humanities, it seems obvious that disagreements are bound to occur. The aim of this paper is to show that whereas the agent who perceives his/her contribution as being misunderstood locates the origin of the communication problem on the side of the receiver who "misinterprets" the text, the emitter is in fact also contributing to the possibility of this misunderstanding through the very manner in which his/her (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Sanford C. Goldberg (2009). Reliabilism in Philosophy. Philosophical Studies 142 (1).
    The following three propositions appear to be individually defensible but jointly inconsistent: (1) reliability is a necessary condition on epistemic justification; (2) on contested matters in philosophy, my beliefs are not reliably formed; (3) some of these beliefs are epistemically justified. I explore the nature and scope of the problem, examine and reject some candidate solutions, compare the issue with ones arising in discussions about disagreement, and offer a brief assessment of our predicament.
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Alvin I. Goldman (1994). Argumentation and Social Epistemology. Journal of Philosophy 91 (1):27-49.
    In my reading list   |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | More..
  • Allan Hazlett, Faith and Liberalism.
    But is it not possible, that men who really love truth, and are open to conviction, may differ about first principles? I think it is possible, and that it cannot, without great want of charity, be denied to be possible. (Thomas Reid, Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man, Essay 6, Chapter..
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: cassetteradio.com   | Scholar | More..
  • Thomas Kelly (2009). Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence. In Ted Warfield & Richard Feldman (eds.), Disagreement. Oup.
    My aim in this paper is to develop and defend a novel answer to a question that has recently generated a considerable amount of controversy. The question concerns the normative significance of peer disagreement. Suppose that you and I have been exposed to the same evidence and arguments that bear on some proposition: there is no relevant consideration which is available to you but not to me, or vice versa. For the sake of concreteness, we might picture..
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: princeton.edu   | Scholar | More..
  • Thomas Kelly (2008). Disagreement, Dogmatism, and Belief Polarization. Journal of Philosophy 105 (10):611-633.
    Suppose that you and I disagree about some non-straightforward matter of fact (say, about whether capital punishment tends to have a deterrent effect on crime). Psychologists have demonstrated the following striking phenomenon: if you and I are subsequently exposed to a mixed body of evidence that bears on the question, doing so tends to increase the extent of our initial disagreement. That is, in response to exactly the same evidence, each of us grows increasingly confident of his or her original (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: princeton.edu journalofphilosophy.org   | Scholar | More..
  • Thomas Kelly (2005). The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement. In John Hawthorne & Tamar Gendler Szabo (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Volume 1. Oup.
    Looking back on it, it seems almost incredible that so many equally educated, equally sincere compatriots and contemporaries, all drawing from the same limited stock of evidence, should have reached so many totally different conclusions—and always with complete certainty.
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Discussion (1)  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: princeton.edu   | Scholar | More..
  • Nathan L. King (2008). Religious Diversity and its Challenges to Religious Belief. Philosophy Compass 3 (4):830-853.
    Contemporary Western culture is experiencing a heightened awareness of religious diversity. This article surveys a range of possible responses to such diversity, and distinguishes between responses that concern the salvation or moral transformation of persons (soteriological views) and those that concern the alethic or epistemic status of religious beliefs (doctrinal views). After providing a brief taxonomy of these positions and their possible relations to one another, the article focuses primarily on competing views about the truth and rationality of religious beliefs (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: interscience.wiley.com   | Scholar | More..
  • Barry Lam, Calibrated Probabilities and the Epistemology of Disagreement.
    This paper assesses the comparative reliability of two beliefrevision rules relevant to the epistemology of disagreement, the Equal Weight and Stay the Course rules. I use two measures of reliability for probabilistic belief-revision rules, Calibration and Brier Scoring, to give a precise account of epistemic peerhood and epistemic reliability. On the Calibration measure of reliability, epistemic peerhood is easy to come by, and employing the Equal Weight rule in the case of peer disagreement generally renders you less reliable than Staying (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Barry Lam, On the Rationality of Belief-Invariance in Light of Peer Disagreement.
    This paper considers two questions. First, what is the scope of the Equal Weight View? Is it the case that meeting halfway is the uniquely rational method of belief-revision in all cases of known peer disagreement? The answer is no. It is sometimes rational to maintain your own opinion in the face of peer disagreement. But this leaves open the possibility that the Equal Weight View is indeed sometimes the uniquely rational method of belief revision. Precisely what is the skeptical (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Pierre Le Morvan, Uncorrected Proof.
    In this article I argue that the prevalence of intersubjective disagreement in epistemology poses a serious problem for Epistemic Externalism. I put the problem in the form of a dilemma: either Epistemic Externalism is not a complete account of epistemic justification or it’s implausible to claim that the belief that Epistemic Externalism is true is itself an externalistically justified belief.
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Keith Lehrer (1976). When Rational Disagreement is Impossible. Noûs 10 (3):327-332.
    In my reading list   |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | More..
  • Andrew Lugg (1986). An Alternative to the Traditional Model? Laudan on Disagreement and Consensus in Science. Philosophy of Science 53 (3):419-424.
    In my reading list   |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | More..
  • Jonathan Matheson (2009). Conciliatory Views of Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 6 (3):269-279.
    Conciliatory views of disagreement maintain that discovering a particular type of disagreement requires that one make doxastic conciliation. In this paper I give a more formal characterization of such a view. After explaining and motivating this view as the correct view regarding the epistemic significance of disagreement, I proceed to defend it from several objections concerning higher-order evidence (evidence about the character of one’s evidence) made by Thomas Kelly (2005).
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Marc Moffett, A Paradox of Ideal Rational Inquiry.
    In my reading list   |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Marc Moffett, Reasonable Disagreement and Rational Group Inquiry.
    In my reading list   |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Serge Morin (1980). Disagreement and Communication Among Various Philosophical Systems: A Biranian View. Journal of the History of Philosophy 18 (3).
    In my reading list   |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Jeryl L. Mumpower & Thomas R. Stewart (1996). Expert Judgement and Expert Disagreement. Thinking and Reasoning 2 (2 & 3):191 – 212.
    As Hammond has argued, traditional explanations for disagreement among experts (incompetence, venality, and ideology) are inadequate. The character and fallibilities of the human judgement process itself lead to persistent disagreements even among competent, honest, and disinterested experts. Social Judgement Theory provides powerful methods for analysing such judgementally based disagreements when the experts' judgement processes can be represented by additive models involving the same cues. However, the validity and usefulness of such representations depend on several conditions: (a) experts must agree on (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Andrew Sepielli, Conciliation and Rationality.
    I introduce an alternative framework for thinking about peer disagreement -- one that distinguishes sharply between epistemic rationality and evidential support. I then defend the view that conciliationism provides the right answer to, "What credences is it rational to adopt in cases of peer disagreement?" and that non-conciliationism provides the right answer to, "What credences does the evidence support in cases of peer disagreement?" I then spend the second half of the paper applying some distinctions within rationality -- global vs. (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Andrew Sepielli, Normative Uncertainty and Intertheoretic Comparisons.
    This paper is about the question of what to do under fundamental normative uncertainty. More specifically, it is about a problem that seems to confront all of the plausible answers to that question -- that it is impossible to compare the values of actions across different normative views or theories. I present a solution to that problem in 3 stages.

    Comments EXTREMELY welcome.
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Tomoji Shogenji, My Way or Her Way: A Conundrum in Bayesian Epistemology of Disagreement.
    The proportional weight view in epistemology of disagreement generalizes the equal weight view and proposes that we assign to judgments of different people weights that are proportional to their epistemic qualifications. It is shown that if the resulting degrees of confidence are to constitute a probability function, they must be the weighted arithmetic means of individual degrees of confidence, while if the resulting degrees of confidence are to obey the Bayesian rule of conditionalization, they must be the weighted geometric means (...)
    In my reading list   |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Ernest Sosa, The Epistemology of Disagreement.
    We begin with a subsidiary question: Is reasonable disagreement ever possible? Opposing answers to one and the same question can both be reasonable, of course, if at least one of them is based on evidence that is persuasive but misleading. This much is uncontroversial. In a more interesting case, Pro and Con share all their evidence. Can they still assess the shared evidence differently? Can one affirm what the other denies, though each proceeds reasonably enough? For each to be reasonable, (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: homepage.mac.com   | Scholar | More..
  • Michael Strevens, Reconsidering Authority.
    How to regard the weight we give to a proposition on the grounds of its being endorsed by an authority? I examine this question as it is raised within the epistemology of science, and I argue that “authority-based weight” should receive special handling, for the following reason. Our assessments of other scientists’ competence or authority are nearly always provisional, in the sense that to save time and money, they are not made nearly as carefully as they could be—indeed, they are (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Folke Tersman (1992). Coherence and Disagreement. Philosophical Studies 65 (3).
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Michael Thune (2010). 'Partial Defeaters' and the Epistemology of Disagreement. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (239):355-372.
    Can known disagreement with our epistemic peers undermine or defeat the justification our beliefs enjoy? Much of the current literature argues for one of two extreme positions on this topic, either that the justification of each person's belief is (fully) defeated by the awareness of disagreement, or that no belief is defeated by this awareness. I steer a middle course and defend a principle describing when a disagreement yields a partial defeater, which results in a loss of some, but not (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Brian Weatherson, Disagreeing About Disagreement.
    I argue with my friends a lot. That is, I offer them reasons to believe all sorts of philosophical conclusions. Sadly, despite the quality of my arguments, and despite their apparent intelligence, they don’t always agree. They keep insisting on principles in the face of my wittier and wittier counterexamples, and they keep offering their own dull alleged counterexamples to my clever principles. What is a philosopher to do in these circumstances? (And I don’t mean get better friends.) One popular (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..
  • Ralph Wedgwood, The Moral Evil Demons.
    Moral disagreement has long been thought to create serious problems for certain views in metaethics. More specifically, moral disagreement has been thought to pose problems for any metaethical view that rejects relativism—that is, for any view that implies that whenever two thinkers disagree about a moral question, at least one of those thinkers’ beliefs about the question is not correct. In this essay, I shall outline a solution to one of these problems. As I shall argue, it turns out in (...)
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: users.ox.ac.uk   | Scholar | More..
  • Alastair Wilson (forthcoming). Disagreement, Equal Weight and Commutativity. Philosophical Studies.
    How should we respond to cases of disagreement where two epistemic agents have the same evidence but come to different conclusions? Adam Elga has provided a Bayesian framework for addressing this question. In this paper, I shall highlight two unfortunate consequences of this framework, which Elga does not anticipate. Both problems derive from a failure of commutativity between application of the equal weight view and updating in the light of other evidence.
    In my reading list   |  Discuss this article  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More..