Reflection and disagreement
Noûs 41 (3):478–502 (2007)
| Abstract | How should you take into account the opinions of an advisor? When you completely defer to the advisor's judgment (the manner in which she responds to her evidence), then you should treat the advisor as a guru. Roughly, that means you should believe what you expect she would believe, if supplied with your extra evidence. When the advisor is your own future self, the resulting principle amounts to a version of the Reflection Principle-a version amended to handle cases of information loss. When you count an advisor as an epistemic peer, you should give her conclusions the same weight as your own. Denying that view-call it the "equal weight view"-leads to absurdity: the absurdity that you could reasonably come to believe yourself to be an epistemic superior to an advisor simply by noting cases of disagreement with her, and taking it that she made most of the mistakes. Accepting the view seems to lead to another absurdity: that one should suspend judgment about everything that one's smart and well-informed friends disagree on, which means suspending judgment about almost everything interesting. But despite appearances, the equal weight view does not have this absurd consequence. Furthermore, the view can be generalized to handle cases involving not just epistemic peers, but also epistemic superiors and inferiors | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,711 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesBarry Lam (2013). Calibrated Probabilities and the Epistemology of Disagreement. Synthese 190 (6):1079-1098.
Barry Lam (2011). On the Rationality of Belief-Invariance in Light of Peer Disagreement. Philosophical Review 120 (2):207-245.
David Enoch (2011). Not Just a Truthometer: Taking Oneself Seriously (but Not Too Seriously) in Cases of Peer Disagreement. Mind 119 (476):953-997.
Axel Gelfert (2011). Who is an Epistemic Peer? Logos and Episteme 2 (4):507-514.
Scott F. Aikin, Michael Harbour, Jonathan A. Neufeld & Robert B. Talisse (2010). Epistemic Abstainers, Epistemic Martyrs, and Epistemic Converts. Logos and Episteme 1 (2):211-219.
Tomas Bogardus (forthcoming). Disagreeing with the (Religious) Skeptic. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion.
Alastair Wilson (2010). Disagreement, Equal Weight and Commutativity. Philosophical Studies 149 (3).
Tomas Bogardus (2009). A Vindication of the Equal-Weight View. Episteme 6 (3):324-335.
Bryan Frances (2012). Discovering Disagreeing Epistemic Peers and Superiors. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 20 (1):1 - 21.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads337 ( #315 of 551,007 )Recent downloads (6 months)26 ( #1,942 of 551,007 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
