Episteme 6 (3):313-323 (2009)
Experts take sides in standing scholarly disagreements. They rely on the epistemic reasons favorable to their side to justify their position. It is argued here that no position actually has an overall balance of undefeated reasons in its favor. Candidates for such reasons include the objective strength of the rational support for one side, the special force of details in the case for one side, and a summary impression of truth. All such factors fail to justify any position.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Rational Disagreement Defended.Earl Conee - 2010 - In Richard Feldman & Ted A. Warfield (eds.), Disagreement. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Indirect Epistemic Reasons and Religious Belief.Kirk Lougheed & Robert Mark Simpson - forthcoming - Religious Studies:1-19.
Disagreement and the First‐Person Perspective.Gurpreet Rattan - 2014 - Analytic Philosophy 55 (1):31-53.
Unconfirmed Peers and Spinelessness.Ben Sherman - 2015 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45 (4):425-444.
Similar books and articles
The Relevance of Metaphysics to the Morality of Abortion.David B. Hershenov & Rose J. Koch - manuscript
The Standard-Relational Theory of 'Ought' and the Oughtistic Theory of Reasons.Daan Evers - 2011 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (1):131-147.
Putting Particularism in its Place.Joshua Gert - 2008 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (3):312-324.
Added to index2009-06-16
Total downloads108 ( #44,409 of 2,153,332 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #105,084 of 2,153,332 )
How can I increase my downloads?