Explanationism provides the best explanation of the epistemic significance of peer disagreement

  • Matt LutzEmail author


In this paper, I provide a novel explanationist framework for thinking about peer disagreement that solves many of the puzzles regarding disagreement that have troubled epistemologists over the last two decades. Explanationism is the view that a subject is justified in believing a proposition just in case that proposition is part of the best explanation of that subject’s total evidence. Applying explanationism to the problem of peer disagreement yields the following principle: in cases of peer disagreement, the thing that the subjects ought to believe is the thing that is the best explanation of their total evidence, where part of their evidence is the fact that they happen to find themselves in disagreement with an epistemic peer. In what follows, I show how to understand and apply this core idea.


Explanationism Peer disagreement Independence Synergy Testimony Prediction 



  1. Bealer, G. (2000). A theory of the a priori. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 81(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bogardus, T. (2009). A vindication of the equal weight view. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 6(3), 324–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christensen, D. (2007). Epistemology of disagreement: The good news. Philosophical Review, 116(2), 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christensen, D. (2009). Disagreement as evidence: The epistemology of controversy. Philosophy Compass, 4(5), 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christensen, D. (2011). Disagreement, question-begging and epistemic self-criticism. Philosophers’ Imprint, 11(6), 1–22.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, A. (2016). Surfing uncertainty: Prediction, action, and the embodied mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Climenhaga, N. (2017). How explanation guides confirmation. Philosophy of Science, 84(2), 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conee, E., & Feldman, R. (2008). Evidence. In Q. Smith (Ed.), Epistemology: New essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Easwaran, K., et al. (2016). Updating on the credences of others: Disagreement, agreement, and synergy. Philosophers’ Imprint, 16, 1–39.Google Scholar
  10. Elga, A. (2007). Reflection and disagreement. Noûs, 41(3), 478–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enoch, D. (2010). Not just a truthometer: Taking oneself seriously (but not too seriously) in cases of peer disagreement. Mind, 119(476), 953–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feldman, R. (2006). Reasonable religious disagreements. In L. Antony (Ed.), Philosophers without gods: Meditations on atheism and the secular life. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Frances, B., & Jonathan, M. (2018). Disagreement. In Zalta E. (Ed.), Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  14. Kelly, T. (2005). The epistemic significance of disagreement. In J. Hawthorne & T. Gendler (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 1, pp. 167–196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kelly, T. (2011). Peer disagreement and higher order evidence. In A. I. Goldman & D. Whitcomb (Eds.), Social epistemology: Essential readings (pp. 183–217). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. King, N. L. (2012). Disagreement: What’s the problem? or a good peer is hard to find. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85(2), 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lackey, J. (2008). Learning from words: Testimony as a source of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lackey, J. (2010a). What should we do when we disagree? In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lackey, J. (2010b). A justificationalist view of disagreement’s epistemic significance. In A. Haddock, A. Millar, & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Social epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation. Abingdon: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  21. Lord, E. (2014). From independence to conciliationism: An obituary. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 2, 1–13.Google Scholar
  22. Lutz, M. (forthcoming). Background beliefs and plausibility thresholds: Defending explanationist evidentialism. Synthese, 1–17.Google Scholar
  23. Matheson, J. (2015). The epistemic significance of disagreement. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matheson, J., & Carey, B. (2013). How skeptical is the equal weight view? In D. Machuca (Ed.), Disagreement and skepticism (pp. 131–149). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. McCain, K. (2014a). Evidentialism and epistemic justification. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCain, K. (2014b). Evidentialism, explanationism, and beliefs about the future. Erkenntnis, 79, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Okasha, S. (2000). Van Fraassen’s critique of inference to the best explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 31(4), 691–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pittard, J. (2017). Disagreement, reliability, and resilience. Synthese, 194(11), 4389–4409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Poston, T. (2014). Reason and explanation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sliwa, P., & Horowitz, S. (2015). Respecting all the evidence. Philosophical Studies, 172(11), 2835–2858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vavova, K. (2014). Confidence, evidence, and disagreement. Erkenntnis, 79(1), 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wedgwood, R. (2010). The moral evil demons. In R. Feldman & T. Warfield (Eds.), Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. White, R. (2009). On treating oneself and others as thermometers. Episteme, 6(3), 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Worsnip, A. (2014). Disagreement about disagreement? What disagreement about disagreement? Philosophers Imprint, 14(18), 1–20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PhilosophyWuhan UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations