See also:
Profile: Han van Wietmarschen (Stanford University)
  1. R. J. Leland & Han van Wietmarschen (2012). Reasonableness, Intellectual Modesty, and Reciprocity in Political Justification. Ethics 122 (4):721-747.
    Political liberals ask citizens not to appeal to certain considerations, including religious and philosophical convictions, in political deliberation. We argue that political liberals must include a demanding requirement of intellectual modesty in their ideal of citizenship in order to motivate this deliberative restraint. The requirement calls on each citizen to believe that the best reasoners disagree about the considerations that she is barred from appealing to. Along the way, we clarify how requirements of intellectual modesty relate to moral reasons for (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  2.  77
    Han van Wietmarschen (2013). Peer Disagreement, Evidence, and Well-Groundedness. Philosophical Review 122 (3):395-425.
    The central question of the peer disagreement debate is: what should you believe about the disputed proposition if you have good reason to believe that an epistemic peer disagrees with you? This article shows that this question is ambiguous between evidential support (or propositional justification) and well-groundedness (or doxastic justification). The discussion focuses on conciliatory views, according to which peer disagreements require you to significantly revise your view or to suspend judgment. The article argues that for a wide range of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  3.  6
    Han van Wietmarschen (forthcoming). Essays in Collective Epistemology. Philosophical Quarterly:pqv121.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography