Epistemic Peerhood, Likelihood, and Equal Weight

Logos and Episteme 8 (3):307-344 (2017)

Authors
Marc Andree Weber
Universität Mannheim
Abstract
Standardly, epistemic peers regarding a given matter are said to be people of equal competence who share all relevant evidence. Alternatively, one can define epistemic peers regarding a given matter as people who are equally likely to be right about that matter. I argue that a definition in terms of likelihood captures the essence of epistemic peerhood better than the standard definition or any variant of it. What is more, a likelihood definition implies the truth of the central thesis in the debate on peer disagreement, the so-called Equal Weight View, according to which we should give the opinions of our peers the same weight we give our own. Adopting a likelihood definition, however, does not end the debate on peer disagreement, because the alleged theoretical alternatives to the Equal Weight View, reinterpreted in the light of a likelihood definition, can in fact be shown to be compatible with this view—though the reinterpreted versions may appear less plausible than the original ones.
Keywords Disagreement  Peers  Elga, Adam  Likelihood  Epistemic Rationality
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 2069-0533
DOI 10.5840/logos-episteme20178325
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 41,650
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Armchair Disagreement.Marc Andree Weber - 2017 - Metaphilosophy 48 (4):527-549.
Questionable Peers and Spinelessness.Sherman Benjamin - 2015 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45 (4):425-444.
Disagreeing with the (Religious) Skeptic.Tomas Bogardus - 2013 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74 (1):5-17.
Who is an Epistemic Peer?Axel Gelfert - 2011 - Logos and Episteme 2 (4):507-514.
Unconfirmed Peers and Spinelessness.Ben Sherman - 2015 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45 (4):425-444.
Disagreement, Equal Weight and Commutativity.Alastair Wilson - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 149 (3):321 - 326.
Reflection and Disagreement.Adam Elga - 2007 - Noûs 41 (3):478–502.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-10-16

Total views
15 ( #531,527 of 2,250,031 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #86,111 of 2,250,031 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature