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)
DOI 10.3366/E1742360009000732
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 24,470
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Earl Conee (2010). Rational Disagreement Defended. In Richard Feldman & Ted A. Warfield (eds.), Disagreement. Oxford University Press.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Ben Sherman (2015). Unconfirmed Peers and Spinelessness. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45 (4):425-444.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

104 ( #44,383 of 1,925,550 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

12 ( #66,911 of 1,925,550 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.